Interesting conversation with Dawkins. (Hat tip to tweet from BHA.)
Law is a philosopher with an interest in the paranormal, so not surprisingly Sue Blackmore crops up. Love the “God helmet” passage. Also love the infinite regress argument on what counts as “evidence”. Must follow up with Law, and the argument around the value of philosophy (and theology) to scientists. (See previous Krauss reference.)
Law seems to have the patience to take his differences with Dawkins along in conversation. I’ve lost that.
Great first question too – where Dawkins doesn’t get it. The logical positivism and regress of scientific method not itself being amenable to scientific method. (See Maxwell’s Wisdom)
(Also the 4th question about prejudiced topics even in secular schools. Brilliant. Brilliant. The faith in “objective” peer review and the method, especially in highly specialised physics (Higgs Boson again). Objective standards of “expertise”, “concensus”, “independence”, etc, etc …. the “On The Road” continuous scroll myth …. believe in bullshit, go nuclear, tire of rationality …. lots there. The question at 1:24 ish … different sciences, different kinds of evidence, different things fixed / explained by that evidence.)