Skip to main content

PLEASE PUBLICIZE: Mass homeopathy overdose on Sat 30th

At 10:23am on January 30th Jan outside Conway Hall 25 Red Lion Square London WC1R 4RL, many sceptics (and more than three hundred homeopathy sceptics nationwide) will be taking part in a mass homeopathic 'overdose' in protest at Boots' continued endorsement and sale of homeopathic remedies, and to raise public awareness about the fact that homeopathic remedies have nothing in them. More information here. Assemble 10.00am. Organized by Skeptics in the Pub.

Note that this event is then immediately followed by the CFI UK TRICK OR TREATMENT event (organized by myself) with Simon Singh, John Garrow and Andy Lewis, also at Conway Hall.

Details of the event at London sceptics in the pub site here.


What we need is true healing without all the pills and potions

Psychosomatic Healing
Handling the stress related to all illness. With a reduction in Mental and Physical Stress comes an improvement in health.
I'm sympathetic to this idea, however, what would really be useful is to defeat homeopathy on its own terms. In homeopathy the smaller the dosage, the smaller the actual working chemical, the bigger the effect.

Now, faced with people who swallow 20-50 pills the homeopaths could argue that the reason why it didn't have an effect is that it was taken in large doses...

If homeopathy would mean that an x amount of chemical y leads to the healing of illness S and a larger dose will lead there quicker (until a threshold is reached, beyond that it would mean an overdose) the action would be able to discredit them. But sadly, because they believe in a reverse logic (diluting), taking 50 pills will lead nowhere... Or, at least it will have nothing to do with overdose.
Stephen Law said…
Yes I though of that. Perhaps half should take many standard homeopathy pills, and half should take mega-dilutions (far more diluted, and thus far more powerful, than the standard homeopathic dilutions). Possibly that is what will be taken?

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

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

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