Skip to main content

Via ferrata

The War For Children's Minds is now out in paperback, btw.

I am off doing via ferratta in Italy for a week, so won't be posting...http://p.vtourist.com/1485317-Travel_Picture-me_on_via_ferrata_delle_trincee_dolomites.jpg
I realize I have a few loose ends to tie up re private schools...

Comments

Anonymous said…
 What are key compelling reasons for outsourcing by the US firms?


 What is the break-up of total spending by the top US based law
firms?


 Where the business of legal outsourcing emanate from?


 What is the annual contribution made to the US economy due to
outsourcing?


 What is the business expected to come in India pertaining to legal
outsourcing?


 Why India is in the lead in the legal outsourcing industry?


 What is the pricing trend in the LPO business industry?


 What is the supply source of legal outsourcing services from India?


 What about patent oriented services?


To learn more about the FAQs over Legal Process Outsourcing industry
in India, visit www.kpoconsultants.com
Anonymous said…
Hey, while searching for widgets for my blog, I stumbled upon www.widgetmate.com and wow! I found what I wanted. A cool news widget. My blog is now showing latest news with title, description and images. Took just few minutes to add. Awesome!
Anonymous said…
I had a chance to visit The Ski Channel which is having all sorts of contests where you can win 3 nights in Crested Butte, lift tickets, and much more. Check out: http://www.theskichannel.com to enter now…
Anonymous said…
I am currently a comcast subscriber and they currently do not carry THE SKI CHANNEL. If enough people write in hopefully they will soon carry the channel.

http://www.comcastsupport.com/redirects/com/useremailstartcom.asp

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

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o

Suggesting a new named fallacy: the Non Post Hoc Fallacy (or David Cameron Fallacy)

Many of us are familiar with the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (' after this, therefore because of this) - Post Hoc Fallacy for short). It's the fallacy of supposing that, because B occurred after A, A must be the cause of B. For example: My car stopped working after I changed the oil, so changing the oil caused it to stop working. Or:  I wore my red jumper to the exam and I passed, so that jumper is lucky: it caused me to pass. This fallacy is so common, it gets a latin name. However, there's a related common fallacy that I think also deserves a name. I am going to call it the Non Post Hoc Fallacy (' not after of this, therefore not because of this), or, perhaps more memorably, the David Cameron Fallacy. Every now and then someone desperate to ‘prove’ that X is not causally responsible for Y – e.g poverty is not a cause of crime, will commit the following fallacy. They will argue that as X has often occurred without Y following, therefore X was not the