Skip to main content

Philosophy in Schools seminar

I am involved in the launch of Philosophy in Schools, a book about - philosophy in schools. If you wish to attend next Wednesday (free wine), see this link, or below.

Flyer for book here.

Philosophy in Schools Seminar

What is Philosophy in Schools?

Philosophy in Schools is a collection of original philosophical essays that together make a robust case for teaching philosophy in schools. Leading philosophers of education explode the myth that philosophy is somehow too difficult or abstract for children to set out a series of compelling articles for its inclusion in the school curriculum.

Philosophy in Schools Seminar
When: Wednesday 2 July 4PM - to 6PM
Where: Clarke Hall, Institute of Education, University of London

Speakers
Professor Robert Fisher (Brunel University)
Dr Michael Hand (Institute of Education)
Dr Stephen Law (Heythrop College, University of London)
Dr Judith Suissa (Institute of Education, University of London)
Dr Carrie Winstanley (Roehampton University)

Reception
The seminar will be followed by a wine reception sponsored by Continuum. Copies of the book will be available at a 35% discount.

How to book:
RSVP to m.hand@ioe.ac.uk or c.winstanley@ioe.ac.uk
Labels:

Comments

Sally_bm said…
Out of interest, do you know of, and if so what do you think of, the P4C- philosophy for children- stuff?
June 28, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Anonymous said…
Stephen,

I am truly interested in philosphy for children and would love to read this collection of essays. But 70 pounds?? 45 pounds with the discount? Seriously?

I can author a hard back, full colour, print on demand book which will then cost me $50 plus delivery. A paperback, or black and white text-only book can be printed for far less.

Surely if you want to get the message out, there are better ways of doing this?
June 28, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Stephen Law said…
I have to agree John. It's ridiculously priced.
June 29, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Stephen Law said…
The P4C stuff is ok, I think. Sapere are the people to tel you more about it. My view is their community of inquiry approach needs supplementing with some critical thinking input or it can into a sort of rambling stream of consciousness rather than a logical, structured debate.

Nevertheless the CoI approach does show major benefits, even without such a supplement.
June 29, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Stephen Law said…
John - actually, I have one spare copy to get rid of. Want it for £20? Email me if you do...
June 30, 2008 at 8:31 AM
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

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

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more