The Absurdity of an ND Degree - UBCNM 2008:

a little knowledge about the 'categorical science label' placed upon naturopathy by the University of Bridgeport [01 below], the actual content of their ND program [its essential vitalism; 02 below], and what science legitimately says concerning that content [vitalism is in no way within science; modern science in fact rejects vitalism as an explanatory mode; 03 below] reveals quite an absurdity -- to the extent that one is struck by its full-blown nonintelligence [04 below]:

01. the science claims of UBCNM, one example:

(per http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Today's_Nat.htm ; archived here {2004}, http://web.archive.org/web/20040405090112/http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Today's_Nat.htm ):

"today's naturopathic physician [...is] practicing scientific medicine."

Note: the claim is that the practice of naturopathy is scientific -- naturopathy is what naturopaths do / practice, therein labeled "scientific."

02. the essential vitalism of UBCNM, one example:

(per http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_Prihtm.htm ; archived here {2004}, http://web.archive.org/web/20040603150636/http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_Prihtm.htm ):

"[naturopathy's] six guiding principles. Guiding principle # 1 [their PRIMARY principle]: the healing power of nature [aka] viz [sp., vis] medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force."

Note: a "life force" is outright vitalism, the core / primary naturopathic principle.

03. what science says about vitalism, one example:

as the Wikipedia.org article "Vitalism" notes (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism),

quoting Alan Sokal, PhD:

"nearly all the pseudoscientific systems to be examined in this essay are based philosophically on vitalism [...] mainstream science has rejected vitalism since at least the 1930s, for a plethora of good reasons that have only become stronger with time" (from ISBN 0415305926; 2006).

04. the huge absurdity:

labeling what is not science as science. Something is not the same as something it is vastly different from, and excluded from -- duh. An ND degree is a regionally accredited, States and Federal Government sanctioned subterfuge.

Vitalism's Profound Nonscientific Status - Richard Dawkins (ISBN 0199216800; 2008):

01. What science says, a specific example:

in the newly published "The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing" (ISBN 0199216800; 2008), Richard Dawkins writes:

"life is the execution of programs written using a small digital alphabet in a single, universal machine language. This realization was the hammer blow that knocked the last nail in the coffin of vitalism and, by extension, of dualism. The hammer was wielded, with undisguised youthful relish, by James Watson and Francis Crick [p.030...] for me, the greatest achievement of Watson and Crick was to turn genetics from a branch of wet and squishy physiology into a branch of information technology, in the process slaying, as I suggested above, the ghost of vitalism [p.226]."

Note: obviously, vitalism is profoundly science-ejected according to Dr. Dawkins, a leading biologist.

02. What naturopathy says:

02.a. recently, I received by Google news alert the following announcement:

"Huber Natural Health LLC recently held a ribbon-cutting ceremony and open house to celebrate the opening of its new permanent location [...our practitioners are] Dr. Luke Huber, N.D. [...and] Dr. Ruth Galbraith, N.D. [...] for more information, visit www.hubernaturalhealth.com."

02.b. so, I followed the practice site link, where we are told by NDs Huber and Galbraith, in a web page titled "Naturopathic Medicine", regarding naturopathy and science, in quite certain language:

"naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] is naturopathic medicine scientific? Yes."

Note: their claim is that naturopathy is within science, is scientific.

02.c. we are also told on this same page by these NDs that there are essential and definitive:

"principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1 being] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN...] naturopathic doctors respect and work with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling [...] vis medicatrix naturae -- 'the healing power of nature' [...] this concept [...is] one of the central themes of naturopathic philosophy to this day."

Note: nowhere on that page is HPN-VMN explained for what it actually contextually means to NDs - vitalism [a 'purposeful life spirit' bioagency figmentation]. For my aggregation of such 'essential naturopathic vitalism,' visit http://thevitalismofnaturopathy.blogspot.com/ .

03. What science says, collectively:

vitalism has been profoundly science-ejected for several decades. See http://novfsinscience.blogspot.com/ .

04. Note, in sum:

naturopathy falsely labels the profoundly science-ejected as scientific. Also, we are told here, that Dr. Galbraith is the current President of the NHAND.

A Letter to King 5:

Recently, I received a Google news alert about a web article by the TV station King 5 on naturopathy.

This was my letter to them, in response [in green]:

In "Bastyr Camp Introduces Traditional Medical Students to Natural Medicine" by Jean Enersen

(per http://www.king5.com/health/stories/NW_072508HEB_bastyr_cam_camp_LJ.a832e4.html ),

King 5 News states:

"Bastyr camp introduces traditional medical students to natural medicine [...] the curriculum includes everything from nutrition to Chinese medicine to herbal medicine, all back[ed] up by science."

I know a little about Bastyr, naturopathy and science.

Bastyr claims that within what they call "natural health science" is both spiritism and vitalism (see http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drmiss_22425_brief.php ). If this is in doubt, see OBNE (per http://www.oregon.gov/OBNE/Aboutnaturopathy.shtml ).

Again, you say this naturopathy approach is "all backed up by science;" and vitalism (see http://thevitalismofnaturopathy.blogspot.com/) and spiritistic supernaturalism (see http://naturopathicspiritism0000.blogspot.com/) are what defines naturopathy.

My request is this: can you share with me the science behind vitalism and supernaturalism [the essentially naturopathic]?

According to my studies, science neither includes nor supports vitalism (see http://novfsinscience.blogspot.com/) or the supernatural (see http://sciencerejectssupernaturalism0000.blogspot.com/) [in fact, science has rejected both -- for several decades and a few centuries, respectively].

To me, the claim that something is scientific when it isn't is flim-flam.

In fact, in the recently published article in the Guardian by Rose Shapiro, author of "Suckers: How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All" (ISBN 1846550289; 2008)

(see http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/24/healthandwellbeing.radovankaradzic?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews),

the author states:

"could this be the moment when alternative medicine finally gets the reputation it deserves and is seen for what it is - a massive social and intellectual fraud? [...] alternative medicine is not only founded on lies and falsehoods, but it can be very bad indeed for your health [physical AND mental!!!]."

Do you see naturopathy's lies yet?

-Rob Cullen

Let's begin our naturopathy criticism:

This blog page is dedicated to investigating and exposing Naturopathic Medicine for the intellectual fraud that it truly is.

As whim dictates, I shall scribble.

To quote Rose Shapiro from the Guardian article "A Bad Week For Alternative Medicine, "

"could this be the moment when alternative medicine finally gets the reputation it deserves and is seen for what it is -- a massive social and intellectual fraud?"

My basic analytical formula is as follows:

naturopathy claims to be scientific;

naturopathy is based upon vitalism;

naturopathy is based upon supernatural spiritism;

both vitalism and supernatural spiritism are profoundly science-ejected [I will not
cite the scientific pronouncements of such, as they are PROFOUND,
and such is simply FACTUAL].

So, in the end, naturopathy is about BULLSHIT:

claiming that that which is PROFOUNDLY science-ejected / non-science-supported is in fact [falsely] scientific.

I have termed this "epistemic conflation," the blending of knowledge types:

the claim that that which is not scientific is simultaneously scientific.

If you bear with me, I shall perpetually expose this CRAPPOLA.

-r.c.