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

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist
49 comments
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