Here’s a few debates I’ve been observing – on subjects dear to this blogger’s, er – brain…

  • I commend this burgeoning debate between Tim Wilkinson and Peter Hitchens, on the subject on the legalisation of weed. Hitchens states conservative principles without the oily obfuscation of like-minded commentators, while Tim has the argumentative and investigative chops to expound the “pro” case effectively. Here, in order, are salvos from Wilkinson, Hitchens, Hitchens, Hitchens, Hitchens, Hitchens, Wilkinson and Wilkinson. (But keep an eye on their blogs, because there’s more to come.)
  • Philosophy Prof. Edward Feser is debating scientists like Jerry Coyne and Jason Rosenhouse on the value and validity of theological research. The problem that I have with the latter’s arguments is that they seem to hold that (a) theological reasoning is pretty vacuous but (b) they’ll debate it anyway. It seems unarguable, from reading Feser, that they haven’t the theological arguments so they should either (a) show why they’re invalid per se or (b) admit that this theism thing may not be quite so nakedly absurd as they’ve presumed and school themselves.
  • Peter Kramer followed Marcia Angell’s critique of the reductionist diagnoses and excessive medication of today’s psychiatry with a New York Times op-ed “In Defense of Antidepressants”. Robert Whitaker, whose book was one of those under review in Angell’s piece, replies; charging Kramer’s piece with being symptomatic of “academic psychiatry [that] hasn’t been honest in what it tells the public about psychiatric medications”.
About these ads