Skip to main content

Homeopathy survey

This via Chris French:

Homeopaths are doing a survey of public opinion at

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KJL3D2N

You might like to complete it? It's v quick. [it's also quite astonishingly worded S.L.]

He also points out there is another version of the same survey at

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TMKKV75

The latter has been put up by @skepticCanary (aka Tom Williamson) who claims that "homeopaths have a track record of abandoning ideas if they don't turn out the way they wanted". Surely not, Tom! But, just in case, you might like to complete that one too.

Also, information about the World Skeptics Congress in Berlin in May 2012 will be updated at the following site: http://www.worldskeptics.org/

Comments

Tom Williamson said…
Thanks for the mention Stephen! Nearly 400 people have already filled in the skeptic version of the survey, hoping to hit at least 500 by the end of the month.
Tom Williamson said…
Well it's now over 600, I'm well chuffed! :)
Anonymous said…
And true to form, the homeopaths' original version now states "The fieldwork period for this survey has now closed." That was (suspiciously) quick.
Anonymous said…
Wow, see you didn't post my comment - censorship, perhaps?
You are happy to post another Anonymous one though that supports your views. How very honest & mature.
Double standards, rejecting any info that doesn't conform to your theories.
LMFAO
And just as I predicted.....
Stephen Law said…
Hi Anon. I didn't publish the other one because it seemed senseless and insulting, and I thought it was from a nutter.
Dr. Nancy Malik said…
204 studies in support of homeopathy medicine published in 86 peer-reviewed international medical journals out of which 98+ are FULL TEXT out of which 95 are PDF which can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/b3uvDW

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

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

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