Skip to main content

Steve Wright tomorrow

I will be on the Steve Wright Radio 2 show tomorrow afternoon (show starts 2pm). Deborah Harry is also on. It's then available for a week on iplayer.

PS Well I was SUPPOSED TO BE ON, but wasn't - odd. Maybe tomorrow.

POST SCRIPT Well I am now down for Friday 27th. Fingers crossed...

27 May 2011 14:00
BBC Radio 2
Steve and Tim chat to Gloria Hunniford and author Stephen Law.

Postscript. Well I was on for about 2 mins. Still, I plugged the book and the college. at 2 hrs 33 mins: here for a week.


Paul Franklin said…
Excellent. I look forward to hearing your duet!
Stephen Law said…
Well I was on...for about 2 minutes... Still, plugged the book and the college.
Stephen Law said…
At 2hrs 33 mins, for the next week here:
Rip-off. They should've given you more time.
The tune following your (sad excuse for an) interview was quite appropriate: "Elvis Aint Dead" by Scouting for Girls.
Dear Stephen I listened to this on radio 2 and really enjoyed the way you think... I have been told by my parents always to question everything Im taught and told.I am very grateful to them for this. I am trying to do the same with my own children but they do look at me like am mad most of the time... I know Im not , I just have a inquisitive mind. I am now a designer as well as university lecturer and thinking the way you suggest is helpful on a daily basis.I have tried to buy the book.. but I am soon for Foyles... will try waterstones tomorrow. I look forward o reading your book
Nick Sutherland said…
Really enjoyed the brief interview that you gave - and best of all it brought me to your blog.

I've read a little bit of philosophy but nothing too serious (mostly Alain de Botton and Richard Dawkins) which I intend to change having listened to you.

From a practical perspective I do have a general interest in business ethics - is there any reading that you can recommend that would be a good introduction to the area?
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Nick. Business ethics i not my thing - not a clue!
Nick said…
Nick: this book by Richard Rowson on working ethics is not too bad -
Nick, Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury is the best source I have read on the topic of business ethics. Best, TAM.
Nick Sutherland said…
Thanks everybody

I'll have a look and let you know what I find out.

Interestingly I work for a large multinational defence and security company - (no names, no pack drill). They are very hot on the ethics of business conduct but not so much on the ehtics of the industry.

We tout ourselves as a very ethical company but I'm not so sure ...
treejag said…
Just read Stephen Laws Comments in New Scientist about Homeopathy, and fitting it into his lovely little cute philosophical concept of an "Intellectual Black hole", wow isn't that concept so clever, congratulations Laws. How or why he calls himself a philosopher I'm not quite sure, but speaking from his rear about something he knows nothing about isn't a good philosophical starting point. If he would first study the evidence of what Homeopathy has achieved therapeutically and for over 200 years, and actually tried to understand it by reading a book without unphilosphical, and unscientific bias, then he might learn something. Philosopher???????!!!!!!!
Miles Rind said…
If he would first study the evidence of what Homeopathy has achieved therapeutically and for over 200 years

Ha ha--good one, Treejag!

Or were you not trying to be funny?
treejag said…
No MKR I wasn't trying to be funny, you are merely getting a little chuckle out of the depths of your ignorance about homeopathy.

I have no respect for S Law as a "philosopher" when he includes homeopathy in his "black hole" thinking category, when he, like yourself, is merely repeating what has been spoon fed to him through the media i.e. by the pharma drug cartel via their "scientist" spokesmen.

It is of course pathetic science to deny and refuse to investigate fairly, something that consistently produces wonderful true healing results as homeopathy does, but pharma drug money and their self-interested spokespeople, plus hidebound scientific "thinking", keeps this from happening.

If Law was fairer with his examples of "black hole", closed thinking, then he would have surely included the giving of billions of pounds worth of pharma drugs, forever resulting in side-effects aka more illness, to the desperate detriment to the health of mankind, i.e. how absurd is it to allow pharma drugs to be associated with anything denoting real medicine?
JonB said…
I'll write here what I wrote on the Amazon review page. Comments such as those from Treejag are invaluable in demonstrating how necessary a book like believing bullshit is. Don't try and argue with Treejag (or do, and see how many of Dr Law's 'bad reasoning tricks' you can spot!), for s/he is trapped in an intellectual black hole. Don't want your kids to turn out this way? Get to know the techniques which seduced and trap people like Treejag.

As for "How or why he calls himself a philosopher I'm not quite sure" How does holding a doctorate in philosophy from Oxford, being a senior lecturer in Philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London (a specialist college for philosophy and theology), being regularly published in academic philosophy journals as well as a bestselling and prize winning author of 'popular' philosophy, being the editor Think journal (which is published by the royal institute of philosophy, and being provost for the Centre for Inquiry UK, suffice?

Popular posts from this blog


(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

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

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