Skip to main content

How philosophy can help your business or organisation - two testimonials

Can philosophy and critical thinking benefit your business or organisation? Yes!

Here are two testimonials regarding work I've done recently for the Government of Malta and E.On Next:

Charles Deguara, Auditor General at National Audit Office (Malta):

'In line with our policy of offering diverse professional development opportunities to our staff, Dr Stephen Law, a well renowned professor in philosophy in international circles , was invited recently by the National Audit Office to conduct a three hour webinar on critical thinking to all its employees...[T]his webinar made us even more aware of the beneficial effect of philosophy especially to facilitate our thinking and reasoning processes. Undoubtedly, as auditors this is extremely important in our work, particularly when it comes to collecting and evaluating audit evidence and eventually to the expression of professional judgement.

In actual fact, this webinar’s success exceeded all expectations, as clearly evidenced by the extremely positive results arising out of the course evaluation carried out after each training event. It is significant to note that 70% of respondents believe that the study of philosophy can benefit the auditing profession in a tangible manner.


The way in which Dr Law managed to convey certain philosophical concepts, in such a clear and understandable manner, to an audience which had never studied philosophy is indeed impressive. This is due mainly to his excellent and comprehensive knowledge of this subject as well as to his excellent communication skills and abilities; thus Dr Law managed very successfully to relate such philosophical concepts to real life situations and circumstances, which the audience found extremely interesting.'

Yonadav Yuval. Chief Information Officer, E.On Next:

'Highly recommended. Stephen raised our awareness to topics that subtly and not-so-subtly affect us in the company every day. The content and the delivery were pitched just right and hit home with everybody that attended. It’s also a great way to bring together people from across the business to explore common themes.'


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

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

Why do atheists think Christians believe unreasonably, if they don't?

How reasonable is it for the religious to believe the central tenets of their respective religions? According to many atheists: not very. Many atheists suppose it is in each case unreasonable for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bahá’ís, Quakers, Mormons, Scientologists, and so on to believe what they do. The religious person usually takes a different view of at least their own religious belief. They suppose science and reason do not significantly undermine, and may indeed support, the core tenets of their own faith. The same is true of non-religious theists. They consider their brand of theism is reasonably, or at least not unreasonably, held even if no particular religion is. Indeed, many theists consider atheism unreasonable. Even when participants in discussions between atheists on the one hand and defenders of some variety of religious or theistic belief on the other include intelligent, philosophically sophisticated and well-informed people striving to think carefully and objec