Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Naturopathy's Neomedievalism - Mittman 1997 (ND, DHANP, AANMC Pres.):

here, I demonstrate the 'epistemic conflation sectarianism-absurdity' which epitomizes so-called 'modern scientific' naturopathic medicine -- the combining and mislabeling of knowledge types as if they are the same; that is, claiming that certain types of nonscientific knowledge are within science / supported by science / are science when such profoundly isn't -- via a 'top-dog naturo.-homeo. quackademic':

001. Paul Mittman (ND NCNM 1985, DHANP AANP), the 2007 AANP Physician [!!!] of the Year, President and CEO of Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and President of the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges writes in "Naturopathic Medicine, Vitalism and Homeopathy" (Townsend Letter For Doctors and Patients; 1997):

001.a. concerning naturopathy's essential vitalism:

"[naturopathy is centered around] a belief in the healing power of nature [...we] use medicines and modalities that can directly stimulate the vis medicatrix naturae [...aka] chi, prana, or the vital force [...via] energetic therapies like homeopathy, Chinese and ayurvedic medicine [...] there is no philosophical conflict between homeopathy and naturopathic medicine. In fact, homeopathy is probably the clearest example of the healing power of nature [naturopathy's central belief...per] Hahnemann's homeopathy linked the disturbed vital force to the diseased body [...as] D.D. Palmer's chiropractic saw the spine as the conduit for the 'innate wisdom' [...this] animating spirit [belief...is] the core and essence of naturopathy."

Note: for more 'essential naturopathic vitalism' - a sectarian belief system per a 'purposeful life spirit' bioagency / 'god power within' keystone premise -- see here.

001.b. and concerning knowledge-type conflation / requisite sectarianism / religiosity:

"science and medicine have spent the last 500 years divorced from religion and spirituality. As naturopaths, we must openly acknowledge and unabashedly embrace our partnership with a higher power."

Note: the overall agenda here is to place supernatural figmentations / superstitions within the scientific and medical, per their religious, vitalistic, spiritistic "higher power" intervention keystone concept -- which I'll term shamanism / autoentheism / neomedievalism / pseudoscience / 'the resectarianizing / neomedievalizing of medicine'

-- since the 'knowledge type' road forked a long time ago, science does not contain such or support such:

a distinction that has been quite pronounced FOR AT LEAST A FEW HUNDRED YEARS, since the 1600s by Mittman's own admission [for what AAAS says, see 002., below].

Obviously, naturopathy is a retrograde movement, seeking to equate a scientific fact with an article of faith / the supernatural / and superstition.

001.c. YET AANMC, the organization that Mittman is President of, states that the naturopathic is FIRMLY scientific :

001.c1. in "Naturopathic Medicine: Naturopathic Physicians Are Rigorously Trained"(2003):

"licensed naturopathic physicians have attended four-year professional-level programs at accredited institutions, where they have been educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic [!; naturopathy's 'reverse sectarian accusation'] physicians. Some AANMC member schools require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic [!] medical schools [naturopathy's superscience claim]. During their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences [science, science, science...our] students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

001.c2. in "What Is Naturopathic Medicine"(2003):

"naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science."

002. such 'medieval knowledge-type blending / epistemological distortion' is nonscientific, and harmful to scientific integrity, and therefore actively criticized by the world's most prestigious science association. The American Association for the Advancement of Science states:

002.a. in "A Study Guide For The Evolution Dialogues"(2007):

"what science is and is not. The scientific method uses observation and logic to develop testable hypotheses. Scientific theories encompass many tested hypotheses and are continually refined as new data is discovered. [But,] no aspect of science can address supernatural questions [p.020...e.g.] creationism and 'intelligent design' deal with supernatural questions that [truly] cannot be addressed through the scientific method. Science and religion ask and answer different questions [p.031...] supernatural entities by definition operate outside of natural laws and so [truly] cannot be investigated using methods of experimentation [...] one reason that modern science has flourished since the seventeenth century is that it has limited itself to natural explanations alone [p.032]."

Note: naturopathy absurdly claims that science 'foundations' / bases / contains / supports what it cannot / does not -- that within the scientific is the naturopathic sectarian belief set --

I say bullshit, reasonable distinctions exist between these knowledge types: something is not the same as what it is different from.

002.b. in "Advances"(AAAS Monthly Newsletter; 2005):

"AAAS has become a leading voice in [...] speaking out against attempts to blur distinctions between scientific evidence and other ways of knowing, including those concerned with the supernatural [...we are] defending strong, high quality science education [...] thank you for supporting the effort to defend the integrity of science education [signed Leshner, A.I. (? ?) -- CEO, AAAS]."

Note: the irony of naturopathy, aka "natural medicine", is that their conception of nature is not the naturalism of modern science, but instead the 'blended knowledge kind' of preEnlightenment medievalisms.


Post a Comment