| Title |
A Strong Remedy to a Weak Ethical Defence of Homeopathy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-015-9674-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Shaw |
| Abstract |
In this article, I indicate and illustrate several flaws in a recent "ethical defence" of homeopathy. It transpires that the authors' arguments have several features in common with homeopathic remedies, including strong claims, a lack of logic or evidence, and no actual effect. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Sweden | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Brazil | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
| Scientists | 4 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 18% |
| Librarian | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 2 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 18% |
| Psychology | 1 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2020.
All research outputs
#3,321,568
of 24,167,226 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#147
of 628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,657
of 397,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#10
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,167,226 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.