Skip to main content

Really Really Big Questions


My skeptical kid's book Really Really Big Questions was one of the top fifty winter reads in yesterday's Independent (it was number five, in fact):

Go here.

'This is one book I wish I'd written,' admits Joe Craig of Dr Stephen Law's philosophical compendium, which any child over the age of eight should find some treasure in. 'It is definitely worth spending time on every page of this life-enhancing book. Every home should have a copy,' he adds.

The book aims to develop independent, critical thinking about weird and wacky stuff, from fairies to spoon-bending to God. A sort of skeptical primer that aims to be a lot of fun at the same time...

Publisher Kingfisher

How much? Normally £12.99. But currently just £6.49 from amazon uk:



and also from amazon US.
Labels:

Comments

Martin said…
I was introduced to philosophy at age sixteen. I wish it had been earlier, and firmly believe that children can get a lot out of the subject. I shall seek out a child of the right age that needs a Christmas present so I can add it to their list, and get a sneaky read of the book myself before it gets wrapped.
November 15, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Martin - that's one sold at least.
November 15, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Flea said…
I'm ordering my own copy today. But, is it going to be translated into spanish? When?

"¿Tú, en qué piensas?" ("The ph. files") was a great book that amazed my nieces and nephews (and me) and I only hope to repeat the deed!
November 16, 2009 at 10:40 AM
The Atheist Missionary said…
Stephen, this stuff is veritable gold. I just finished read a superb book called Curious Minds (edited by John Brockman) which is fascinating collection of essays by some of the world's leading scientists about their childhood experiences. If there was one overriding theme that ran through many of the stories it was that their parents provided an atmosphere conducive to learning. Leaving books like this "lying around" is one way to foster such an atmosphere (electric guitars also seem to be a hit at my place).

Really Really Big Questions will be under our secular Christmas tree this year.

Congratulations for your recognition and keep up the great work.
November 17, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Stephen Law said…
Thanks AM - I appreciate that.
November 17, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Sonja said…
Will be purchasing two books, one for each of my granddaughters. Really appreciate books like this for young people - there is not much to choose from for their age. Thank you so much for recognizing that parents need help introducing philosphy to their children - and it is pretty much non-existent in public school curriculums in the USA.
November 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Sonja - that's good to hear. Hope they like it.
November 23, 2009 at 10:04 AM
PrepareforAutomation said…
Why is the hardcover version almost $100?
August 3, 2015 at 5:23 AM
PrepareforAutomation said…
Why is the hardcover version almost $100?
August 3, 2015 at 5:23 AM
Stephen Law said…
h/b out of print I guess, hence 'rare' and thus expensive
August 3, 2015 at 8:23 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

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting
Post a Comment
Read more

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
151 comments
Read more