Abstract
In their recent article “A Gentle Ethical Defence of Homeopathy,” Levy, Gadd, Kerridge, and Komesaroff use the claim that “lack of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of lack” as a component of their ethical defence of homeopathy. In response, this article argues that they cannot use this claim to shore up their ethical arguments. This is because it is false.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baum, R., and W. Sheehan. 1997. In search of Planet Vulcan: The ghost in Newton’s clockwork universe. New York and London: Plenum Trade.
Fontenrose, R. 1973. In search of Vulcan. Journal for the History of Astronomy IV: 145–158.
Levy, D., B. Gadd, I. Kerridge, and P.A. Komesaroff. 2015. A gentle ethical defence of homeopathy. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12(2): 203–209. doi:10.1007/s11673-014-9563-y.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This is a commentary in response to the article “A Gentle Ethical Defence of Homeopathy” by Levy, Gadd, Kerridge, and Komesaroff (2015). The original article, published in the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12(2): 203–209, can be located at DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9563-y.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pickering, N. When Lack of Evidence Is Evidence of Lack. Bioethical Inquiry 12, 545–547 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9675-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9675-z