Skip to main content

Steven Poole exchange with myself

I am now having a bit of banter with Steven Poole on the Guardian webpage on which his very negative review of my book appears, if you are interested. Go here.

Comments

Bill Snedden said…
Hilarious. One would think that a minimum requirement of reviewing non-fiction would be the ability to read objectively. One would apparently be wrong, at least insofar as the Guardian's hiring practices are concerned...
March 15, 2011 at 8:38 PM
Skippy said…
I guess there are people that do and people that review. But people who review seem to have a privileged position in which they can casually distort about what was written and then poke fun at their mangled version of it. Lazy and dishonest really.
March 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM
jeremy said…
Yikes! That's some high level misrepresentation by Poole. Quite appalling, actually!

For what it's worth, Stephen, what is the FULL sentence that begins "In order to refute humanism as I have characterized it, then, it is not enough..."?

Things aren't looking good for Poole in this exchange. Must be incredibly frustrating to be subject to this idiot's judgements...
March 16, 2011 at 3:26 AM
Unknown said…
Mind you, the books that turn up in Steven Poole's short review box are often of interest and it is useful to have one's attention drawn to them, irrespective of the accuracy of his reporting - Stephen's being one good example.
March 16, 2011 at 11:23 AM
Rocky said…
I'm always a bit skeptical of whether book reviewers read all these books that they review from start to finish, or if they do, that they read them especially thoroughly (the latter seems unlikely in this instance given the rather blatant misrepresentations of your claims).
March 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM
Stephen Law said…
I can't get too pissed off about it to be honest - I realize it was a fairly causal knock-about review. But obviously I'm entitled to set the record straight when Poole gets things wrong. I didn't proudly announce that Humanism can't be refuted.

Jeremy, the sentence which Steven took to show I do think that reads:

"In order to refute Humanism as I have characterized it, then, it is not enough that one refute utopianism, utilitarianism, scientism or naturalism. A humanist can reject, or remain neutral concerning, all these philosophical stances."
March 17, 2011 at 9:56 AM
jeremy said…
As I thought. Only an idiot could misunderstand that sentence in the way Poole does.
March 17, 2011 at 6:07 PM
Hugo said…
"Otherwise the truth of "In order to refute the claim that Steven Poole is a moron, it is not enough to show that Steven Poole has said one stupid thing" would entail that "Steven Poole is a moron" can't be refuted."

That's not very graceful.
March 23, 2011 at 3:09 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Sye - nowhere to run to, baby.

SYE RESPONDS TO MY PRECEEDING POST: @ Stephen, Alright, how about we go this way. Since you, and perhaps many of your cohorts are philosphically trained, why don't you show me how it's done. It would appear that your biggest problem with my proof is that you feel that the argument I offer "The impossibility of the contrary," for the truth of my premise that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibiliy," is not, in fact, an argument. Alright in the format you are requesting of me: premise 1 premise 2 premise 3 (...) premise n Therefore: conclusion please prove to me, that "The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument. Cheers, Sye MY RESPONSE TO SYE: Sye You misunderstand. I am not saying you don't have an argument. Maybe you do (though of course I don't think you have a good argument - for there are not the resources on the page behind the continue button to support your conclusion). I am saying I cannot figure out what th...
153 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more