here, fleshing out a point I made in the recent ct.gov submission:
001. Perplexity was tasked:
001.a. "If a middle-school aged science student were doing research on naturopathy's vitalism in relation to science with an A.I.-L.L.M., provide what general determination would result in terms of the scientific support for that."
001.b. the answer, in part:
"a middle-school science student using an AI large language model (LLM) to research vitalism in naturopathy would find that vitalism is a foundational idea in naturopathic practice, emphasizing a 'vital force' or innate self-healing property in living organisms. However, scientific consensus holds that vitalism is regarded as a metaphysical or philosophical perspective, rather than a scientifically supported principle. Vitalism in naturopathy. Naturopathy places vitalism at its core, teaching that health arises from a self-organizing, intelligent life force within the body that maintains and restores health. This belief is central to naturopathic theory and therapy, shaping the 'healing power of nature' principle in the field. Scientific Evaluation. Modern science considers vitalism a metaphysical idea, not a testable or evidence-supported hypothesis. Contemporary biology and medicine explain life and healing entirely using physical and chemical processes, leaving no need for a distinct 'vital force'. Critical reviews state that vitalism is 'unfalsifiable' and does not produce scientific predictions or evidence, placing it outside mainstream scientific acceptance [...vitalism] has no scientific support and is not recognized as a valid explanation by current scientific standards."
so, vitalism is central to naturopathy and it is, in scientific terms, irrelevant. Note: it is not merely a belief, it bases actions which happen in-this-here-world while the premise is, being metaphysical, out-of-this-world. Therein, naturopathy isn't physicianship, essentially, it is metaphysicianship! That is classically termed sectarian medicine.
002. then Perplexity was tasked:
002.a. "Would educational standards be violated if middle school aged students were taught in a science class that a vital force is an objective fact that survives scientific scrutiny and that engaging in medical practice based on that premise was a sound position?"
002.b. the answer, in part:
"in a typical U.S. public-school context that follows modern science standards, teaching middle school students that a 'vital force' is an objective, scientifically validated fact and a sound basis for medical practice would conflict with how science standards define acceptable scientific knowledge and practice. It would generally be classified as teaching a pseudoscientific claim as if it were established science, which professional science-education organizations explicitly discourage in science classes [...] national science-teaching bodies also state that science classes should focus on scientific methods and explanations 'to the exclusion of nonscientific or pseudoscientific methods,explanations, and generalizations.' Middle-school curricula often explicitly distinguish science from pseudoscience and emphasize that claims must be grounded in evidence rather than authority or belief [...] if vitalism were discussed at all in a standards-aligned middle school curriculum, it would generally be as a historical concept that was once proposed and later rejected or abandoned as evidence accumulated, or, as an example used to help students understand how science distinguishes testable hypotheses from metaphysical or pseudoscientific claims [...] because vitalism in this strong sense is not supported by contemporary empirical evidence and is typically classified as pseudoscientific or purely metaphysical, presenting it to middle school students in a science class as 'an objective fact' that 'survives scientific scrutiny,' and a sound scientific basis for practicing medicine would misrepresent the consensus status of the idea within biology and medicine. Professional science-education organizations emphasize that teaching nonscientific or pseudoscientific ideas as if they were established science undermines the goals of science education and conflicts with the nature-of-science components of standards."
hear, hear. And just as a reminder, it is naturopathy at its North American institutional trunk that states 'that a vital force is an objective, scientifically validated fact and a sound basis for medical practice'.
