Skip to main content

CFI UK: Science and Pseudo-Science. Chris French, Andy Lewis, James Ladyman, Stephen Law. Sat 30th November.


File:WLA nyhistorical Lorenzo Niles Fowler Phrenology head.jpg 
Centre for Inquiry UK and Conway Hall present:

Science and Pseudo-Science:

Chris French, Andy Lewis (Quackometer), James Ladyman and Stephen Law

Sat 30th November 2013

What distinguishes real science from pseudo-science, flim-flam and bullshit? Is parapsychology a science? Is Young Earth Creationism science? Is pseudo-science on the rise in British schools? Tickets here or on door.
 

11am Prof. Chris French (Goldsmiths Dept. of Anomolistic Psychology).
“Parapsychology and Science”

12.00 Prof. James Ladyman. Former editor of the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science and author of Understanding Philosophy of Science (Routledge 2002) and (with Don Ross) Every Thing Must Go (Oxford University Press 2007).

“Pseudo-science and Bullshit” Bullshitting, according to Harry Frankfurt, is very different from lying. Pseudoscience is similarly different from science fraud. The pseudoscientist, like the bullshitter, is less in touch with the truth and less concerned with it than either the fraudster or the liar.

1.30pm Dr. Stephen Law (Heythrop College University of London)
“But it Fits!” (looking at Young Earth Creationism)

How to make a ludicrous belief system look not unreasonable.

2.30pm Andy Lewis (Quackometer)
“Educational Imposters: The Rise of Pseudoscience in UK Free Schools”

Michael Gove has stated that Free Schools will not be allowed to teach pseudoscience. But can we trust some of the cult-like organisations running these schools to teach good science and to refrain from letting their own alternative reality influence classrooms? Maharishi and Steiner schools both have occult and pseudoscientific beliefs at their core and so we should ask "What are they teaching children?"

3.30 END

Saturday November 30th 2013

Conway Hall
25 Red Lion Square
Holborn
London
WC1R 4RL

£10 (£5 students) Free to friends of CFI UK. Tickets here.

Labels:

Comments

Edward Ockham said…
My son has been at one of these cult schools for several years. I sent him on the basis that it provided great value, given that some of the cult members are individually wealthy, and subsidise the fees. So it provides value to us at least. My son doesn't take the cult seriously in any way, indeed he is an ultra sceptic and read my philosophy library including Hume, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Dawkins and others.

From the cult's point of view they want to recruit people to their organisation. From my experience the recruitment rate is pretty low – children are actually rational beings. But there are a few, probably just enough to sustain the organisation, so they get what they want. Also, many of the values they hold are what you would most people to hold, like respect, serving society, acting with the common good in mind and not selfishly etc. So everyone benefits.

I imagine most people who send their children to such schools do so for similar reasons, and likewise the organisations that sponsor the schools. Parents want cheap education. Cults want enough new members to sustain themselves. The majority don't ever join the cult, and those that do probably have some inner need to satisfy. So the public interest is served. What's the problem?
August 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Philip Rand said…
Dr Law

As there appears time...you could make your talk even more relevant by linking Nagel's ideas concerning reification in his latest book:

"Mind and Cosmos:
Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False"

The book if you have not read it is quite good (mainly on account that it is short and concise).

Unfortunately, he does not come up with a solution...BUT...there is a scientific solution to his thesis.

However, the solution requires one to discard a belief in the myth of reification...which in many ways resembles the myth young creationists espouse.
August 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM
Anonymous said…
Dear Webmaster,

We received a notice from Google stating that they have levied a penalty on our website as they "detected unnatural links" redirecting to our website holidayiq.com.

The only way we can remove this penalty and help Google reconsider putting our website back in their index is by removing these links and we need your help for the same. We request you to consider this request on high priority.

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/07/could-machine-think.html
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/07/g4s-deal.html
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/07/religious-experience-and-karen.html

We would again like to bring your notice that failure to remove these links would require us to file a "Disavow Links" report with Google. Once we submit this report to Google, they may "flag" your site as "spammy" or otherwise if anything is not in compliance with their guidelines. The last thing we want is to have another webmaster go through this grief!

Your cooperation in this process would be deeply appreciated. We kindly request you to send us an acknowledgement of this mail along with a confirmation that these links have been removed.
Thanks a lot for your help.

If you want to reach out to us mail us on pradeep@holidayiq.com
Regards,
Webmaster
holidayiq.com

Regards
Pradeep Ayyagari
Ph: +91-8197849852
August 30, 2013 at 11:07 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

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