Skip to main content

New Scientist interview

Interview in this week's New Scientist on Believing Bullshit here. This interview enraged one homeopath so much they immediately fired off a one star amazon review and posted here too (as "treejag" on June 13th).

PS books purchased on amazon.co.uk should be with you pretty quickly as their stock arrives about today.

Comments

Tony Lloyd said…
You must stop responding to reviews of your own books.

Authors who do that get turned into Alain de Botton!
June 15, 2011 at 12:13 PM
Stephen Law said…
yes it's bit wanky isn't it. sorry.
June 15, 2011 at 12:15 PM
jeremy said…
I hope it isn't considered too churlish or "elitist" to note that a great many opponents of reason can't seem to write even vaguely grammatical sentences, let alone spell them.

I do note though, for what it's worth, that "Treejag"'s brief ejaculation contained not a single argument.

Perhaps rereading the book at a slower pace would help, if indeed he/she read it in the first place.
June 15, 2011 at 3:35 PM
Stephen Law said…
They had not read the book. Their review of the book was based solely on reading the New Scientist interview (as they admitted in comments on their amazon review).
June 15, 2011 at 3:56 PM
Tony Lloyd said…
I was having a look on Amazon to see if they have any copies yet (they don't, neither do Waterstones.) and noticed that the one star review has been deleted.
June 21, 2011 at 12:44 PM
Stephen Law said…
Yes I just spotted that. Wonder why?
June 21, 2011 at 1:11 PM
Anonymous said…
I Just watched your discussion with Hamza Tzortzis and I have to say you were very impressive. I thought it was very interesting that although the audience clearly were filled with people sympathetic to the other side they loved you.
When is your book out and do you do concessions for the unemployed?
June 29, 2011 at 1:10 AM
Stephen Law said…
Hi Blogtastic - if I were selling them myself I'd give you a discount, but I'm not unfortunately. But amazon are doing it v cheap....
June 29, 2011 at 7:45 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

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