"Teach Them Science", Not 'Junk As Science' - NCSE, CFIA, CLP 2009:

here, I describe a 'high science standards educational advocacy' as reported by the National Center For Science Education [NCSE; see 001., below], a partnership between the Center For Inquiry Austin [CFIA] and the Clerical Letters Project [CLP] called "Teach Them Science" [see 002., below], and in keeping with this blog's mission, I compare this to the science standards of naturopathy [see 003., below]:

001. the NCSE states in "Teach Them Science":

"two organizations — one secular, one religious — have joined forces to produce a new website, Teach Them Science [TTS], in order to advocate for a twenty-first-century science education for the students in Texas's public schools. Sponsored by the Center for Inquiry Austin and the Clergy Letter Project, the Teach Them Science website is intended to empower parents, educators, and concerned citizens to rally in support of the new standards, which treat evolution as the central and unifying principle of the biological sciences that it is."

Note: evolution -- and its genomic basis -- is so important that it is regarded as the central theme of biology: e.g., "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." As such, actually, the understanding of evolutionary and genetic mechanisms did something that seems to be lost in science and biology textbooks today, since it is such a 'discarded concept' not even worthy of mention because it is SO DISCARDED historically -- evolution and genomics are regarded as two of the FINAL NAILS IN THE COFFIN for the concept of vitalism:

a) Richard Dawkins writes in in "River Out of Eden"(1996; ISBN 0465069908):

"after Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves [...] are long strings of pure digital information [...] the genetic code [...is] a quaternary code, with four symbols [...] the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like [...] this digital revolution at the very core of life has dealt the final, killing blow to vitalism -- the belief that living material is deeply distinct from nonliving material [p.017...] there is no spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic [p.018], mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes of digital information [p.019]."

b) Stephen Dutch writes in in "Historical Background of Evolution":

"one of the last holdouts of supernaturalism in science was the nature of life. Many thinkers held that there was something special about life that required a vital force or elan vital that was different from the laws governing inorganic matter. It was once held that chemists would never synthesize organic chemicals, but beginning in the mid-19th century that defense collapsed. The idea that life is driven by some sort of special force is termed vitalism. [But] Lightning is just electricity. [And] Life is chemistry and physics [...] the important thing to realize here is that hard-core supernaturalists weren't simply trying for a simple explanation of complex phenomena. They were desperately hoping for some phenomenon that would forever be inexplicable in conventional scientific terms, where nonbelievers would be compelled either to acknowledge the existence of the supernatural, or be put in a position of blatant intellectual dishonesty [this is what ID is trying these days, often through schools' science standards]."

002. "Teach Them Science" itself states:

002.a1. in "Science Education At Risk":

"got science? Not in Texas [...] the Texas State Board of Education [SBOE] will soon determine the science curriculum standards that will be in place for the next ten years. An SBOE-appointed committee of teachers and scientists has drafted new standards, which they recommended that the SBOE adopt to give students in Texas a 21st century science education. However, nearly half of the SBOE hold worldviews [that is, beliefs / ideologies] that are at odds with the recommended standards. To sway children towards their worldview [I term this 'science as the sword of sectarianism' - politically or curricularly redefining science, as an end-run around scientific-consensi and peer-review mechanisms], they prefer that the standards teach rhetorical arguments against evolution. These false arguments have no basis in science and actually teach students to think unscientifically."

Note: we're told of false antiscience arguments masquerading as legitimate science, miseducating tomorrow's citizens while promoting a particular sectarian agenda through political muscle / curriculum revision end-runs [see 003., below].

002.a2. their fellow "Organizations for 21st Century Science Education" include:

"The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas, Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science, National Center for Science Education, Science Teachers Association of Texas, The Texas Academy of Science, Texas Citizens for Science, Texas Freedom Network, Texas Science Education Leadership Association, 21st-Century Science Coalition."

002.b. CFIA states in "What is the CFI of Austin":

"CFI provides an ethical alternative to religious and paranormal worldviews. In this time of rising religiosity, anti-intellectualism and political turmoil on ethical issues, it is critical that rationalists and freethinkers join together to protect civil liberties, defend reason, and work toward increasing scientific literacy."

Note: here, here.

002.c. CLP states in "Background":

"for too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith."

Note: it is rather absurd to deny what we know about the world in the name of faith's figmentations [see 003., below].

003. naturopathy's archaic and absurd 'science', when figmentations profoundly NOT 21st-century are labeled scientific fact:

while organizations like NCSE, CFI, and CLP do not conflate the knowledge domains of science and faith -- because they are vastly different, epistemically -- naturopathy, overall, claims that an unevidenced article of faith and even the science-ejected IS THE SAME THING as a scientific fact. Such a conflation is not anything like the knowledge-fidelity and high-caliber intellectuality that has historically delineated those domains incrementally over the last few hundred years, wherein 'the supernatural without evidence and science-ejected irrational' is considered VASTLY DIFFERENT from 'that which has scientific support'!

I have termed 'naturopathy's knowledge-blending unreason' "epistemic conflation nonsense" per:

"it follows then that naturopathic statements of being 'scientific, science-based, science, and a branch of medical science' are nonsense since they have radically unlimited the definition of science to such an extent that science and nonscience are indiscernible."

To borrow two labels from Susan Jacoby, this is 'intellectual quackery' and 'junk thought.'

Where's the Qi? aka Vote to Defund NCCAM, & Absurdity:

here, I encourage readers to vote to defund the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine [NCCAM; see 001., below {thanks PZ}], and I illustrate the absurdity of claiming as a foundation for a "science" a premise that lacks any scientific support [see 002., below]:

001. vote to defund the NCCAM, per:

"any legitimate, promising medical treatment can be funded by one of the existing NIH Institutes. There's no need for a separate center for 'alternative' therapies - but what has happened is that NCCAM has become a last refuge for poorly designed, unscientific studies that couldn't get funded through the normal peer-reviewed process [...] the fact is that after >10 years, NCCAM has not yet found a single piece of positive evidence for any of these methods, which include acupuncture, 'qi', homeopathy, magnet therapy, and other treatments."

Note: qi, essentially, does not exist in any scientific sense.

002. absurdly, meanwhile, naturopathy:

002.a. uses the overall labels of "health science", "branch of medical science", "science-based" and such.

002.b. has as its keystone premise both vitalism and supernaturalism.

002.c. labels homeopathy and acupuncture clinical sciences.

002.d. while vitalism is science-ejected, supernaturalism is science-ejected, homeopathy is an elaborate placebo, and acupuncture is an elaborate placebo.

Note: so, the 'without scientific support' or 'explicitly science-ejected' is equal to the 'explicitly labeled scientific' for naturopathy...

absurd.

Susan Jacoby on Pseudoscience - ISBN 0375423745, 2008:

Susan Jacoby writes in "The Age of American Unreason" (ISBN 0375423745; 2008):

"all real scientific research must be and is subjected to rigorous scrutiny by peers. That is what separates science from pseudoscience and junk thought. Without a basic understanding of what constitutes good science neither ordinary citizens nor the politicians who represent them can hope to make thoughtful judgments separating quacks, con men, and practitioners of bad science from thoughtful experts whose advice ought to be taken seriously. Intellectual quackery extends throughout the landscape of academia [p.250]."

Note: for an example of "intellectual quackery" in 'regionally-accredited, .gov-sanctioned, mainstream academia', naturopathy -- with its scientific labeling of the profoundly nonscientific -- does nicely.

Pinker in the NYT, & ISBN 3540768165: Life's Basis is Genomic (2008, 2009):

here, I quote from psychologist Stephen Pinker & ISBN 3540768165, concerning the genomic basis for life [see 001., below] and I contrast this with vitalism, an essentialism that has been science-ejected [see 002, below]:

001. Steven Pinker writes in "My Genome, My Self" in the New York Times (2009-01-07):

"the human mind is prone to essentialism — the intuition that living things house some hidden substance that gives them their form and determines their powers. Over the past century, this essence has become increasingly concrete [...] the essence became identified with the abstractions discovered by Gregor Mendel called genes, and then with the iconic double helix of DNA [...] today, for the price of a flat-screen TV, people can read their essence as a printout detailing their very own A’s, C’s, T’s and G’s [...] there are risks of misunderstandings, but there are also risks in much of the flimflam we tolerate in alternative medicine, and in the hunches and folklore that many doctors prefer to evidence-based medicine [...] Steven Pinker is Harvard College professor of psychology at Harvard University and the author of 'The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window Into Human Nature'."

Note: the chemical basis for life is well-grounded in science, as Schulze-Makuch and Irwin state in "Life in the Universe" (2008, 2nd ed.; ISBN 3540768165):

"[scientifically] life increasingly became recognized as a state or process [...not a substance, per] the abandonment of vitalism in the 19th century [...and subsequent] advances in genetics [...and] biochemistry [...] and molecular biology [...which] elucidated the chemical basis of information storage and transfer in living system, the extremely high information content in macromolecules, and the role they play in perpetuating the form and function of specific living species [p.013...] if a mechanistic view of life which precludes the invocation of vitalism is accepted, it follows that life arises from elements of the non-living world which are simply packaged and processed in a special way. Accordingly, it isn't surprising that many characteristics attributed to the living state can be found among entities that clearly are not alive [p.018]."

002. vitalism & its scientific status:

002.a. vitalism as supernaturalism:

a great example of naturopathy's vitalism, wherein the "life force" or "healing power of nature" which is naturopathy's central premise, is exposed for the nonscientific supernaturalism that it inherently is [spiritism, autoentheism etc.], are my notes from naturopathy school circa 1998.

Note: supernaturalisms, be they theisms or spiritisms, are nonparsimonious figmentations well-outside of science.

002.b. vitalism is PROFOUNDLY science-ejected. As Denis Noble states in "The Music of Life" (2008; ISBN 0199228361):

"systems biology is not 'vitalism' in disguise [...] biological science had to struggle to emerge from the days of vitalism, when people thought that something non-physical had to be added to matter for there to be life [...] nor is it [systems biology] reductionism in disguise [p.065...] a superstition of the order of vitalism [p.078]."

Caveat emptor.

CAM via SHAM: Orac, Salerno in the WSJ 2008-12-25, & UBCNM:

here, I refer to something Orac [of scienceblogs.com] recently wrote concerning a 2008-12-25 Wall Street Journal [WSJ] article by Salerno [see 001., below], & then I quote from the article itself [see 002., below], and state two basic examples of 'such woo at the university / college level' per the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM]:

001. as Orac states in "The Woo-Meister Supreme Returns, and He's Brought His Friends" {2009-01-02} :

"speak it, brother Salerno! [...] the WSJ article was that rarest of things for the mainstream media [...] a direct, skeptical, and science-based attack on CAM/IM [that is, Complementary & Alternative Medicine, Integrative Medicine...] Deepak Chopra [is] that Indian physician who demonstrates that a medical training is no protection whatsoever against pseudoscientific and anti-scientific thinking [...] apparently, Chopra is very unhappy about an article by Steve Salerno that the Wall Street Journal published right after Christmas entitled 'The Touch That Doesn't Heal' [...] as I have discussed time and time again, an M.D. after one's name is no guarantee whatsoever that that person has the slightest understanding of the scientific method or what does and does not constitute good science. Indeed, Deepak Chopra is living proof of that, as is Andrew Weil, David Katz, not to mention the horde of physicians signing petitions expressing 'Dissent from Darwin' over evolution on pro-'intelligent design' creationism sites."

Note: ouch! But remember, to paraphrase Orac, 'truthfulness is never insolent.' A basic skeptical rule is stated above, you'll note: an argument's soundness / a claim is based upon 'the thing itself', not merely the authority of its source.

002. Salerno, S. (? ?) {2008-12-25} writes in the WSJ per "The Touch That Doesn't Heal":

"one of the great ironies of modern health care is that many of the august medical centers that once went to great lengths to vilify nontraditional methods as quackery now have brought those regimens in-house [i.e., 'follow the money!'...] hundreds of colleges operating in all 50 states offer coursework in sundry CAM disciplines [i.e., 'follow the money!'...] while bypassing all the customary peer review, controlled studies and other hallmarks of sound medicine [...] 'special commercial interests and irrational, wishful thinking created NCCAM,' writes Wallace Sampson, a medical doctor and director of the National Council Against Health Fraud, on the Web site Quackwatch.com [...] the National Institutes of Health['s...] National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) [...] despite the $1 billion spent [...] has failed to affirm a single therapy that can withstand the rigors of science [...] 'it is the only entity in the NIH devoted to an ideological [sectarian] approach to health,' writes Dr. Sampson, who has called for the center to be defunded [...] George D. Lundberg, a former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association [...] once said: 'there's no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data [and sectarian CRAP {my embellishment}]."

Note: Salerno is the the author of "SHAM." He mentions that when rigorous science is applied to CAM / IM...'there's no there there.' Orac, previously, had mentioned Katz: who has called for 'a loosening of definitions concerning what constitutes evidence.' When you can't win within the rules, CHANGE THEM.

003. 'such quackery-woo at the university / college level' per the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM] {currently}:

two great ironies / irrationalities of UBCNM:

the label of nonsectarian upon sectarian / ideological 'medicine';

a college teaching the science-ejected as scientific.

Note: when is the profoundly nonscientific the same as the scientific, and when is the 'sectarian belief-based' the same as 'objective science'?

Naturopathy.

Vitalism's Aliases - Vegetarian Times 2000-05 [Koontz, K. (writer) & Goode, T. (ND CCNH)]:

here, I cite a typical practice in CAM, which includes naturopathy, of equating energy with spirit with prana with chi etc., via a Vegetarian Times (2000) article:

Koontz, K. (? ?) writes in "Breath You Take":

"experts say the majority of us don't even do it correctly [it being 'breathing'!!!]. But if we did, we could vastly [!!!] improve our physical, mental, and spiritual health [huh?!?!?!...] 'breath has been used for 5,000 years as the road to consciousness', says Thomas Goode, N.D. [naturopath, by way of Clayton College of Natural Health...] many cultures associate it with energy and spirit: the Indian prana, the Chinese chi, the Japanese ki, the Greek pneuma, the Latin spiritus and the Hebrew neshamah all refer to the air we breathe, or breath itself, as well as our spirit, soul and life energy and essence [p.074]."

Note: ah, those were simpler times, THOUSANDS of years ago! Science didn't exist, and explanations were so...superstitious!!! [vitalism is superstition].

The equations / habits are typical: like the misuse of the science term 'energy' to describe the supernatural-spiritistic, and those health claims -- as New Age CAMs are wont to do -- are absolutely absurd.

I don't see any science credentials on the author's bio. page.

For the N.D.'s bio. page, click here.

.
.
.

Undermining Professionalism - 'Caveat Emptor' per Naturopathy - Perle et al. & UW, UB & ISBN 1741140544:

here, I cite Perle et al. & U.W.S.M. as regards the 'preponderant ethical rigor' required of a modern healthcare professional of any kind [see 001., below]; the University of Bridgeport's labeling of naturopathy as 'nonsectarian science' [see 002.a., below] and 'naturopathic luminaries' labeling of naturopathy as 'professional' [see 002.b., below]; and a warning -- per caveat emptor!!! -- something that shouldn't have to be said about something claiming 'professionalism' [see 003., below]:

001. Perle et al. & University of Washington School of Medicine -- on 'credat vs. caveat emptor':

001.a. apparent 'chiropractic reformers' Murphy, Schneider, Seaman, Perle and Nelson state in "How Can Chiropractic Become a Respected Mainstream Profession? The Example of Podiatry" {Chiropractic & Osteopathy; 2008, 16:10}:

"the professions, which classically included medicine, law and the ministry, are vocations whose members 'profess' to have knowledge that the laity do not comprehend. Given the asymmetry of knowledge between professionals and the laity, society has granted to the professions a certain degree of autonomous control over themselves. However, this social contract demands that each profession, and each professional, place the well-being of society and the patient, client or parishioner ahead of the profession and professional [per fiduciary duty {see 001.b., below}]. Lay persons put their faith in the professional following the dictum credat emptor (let the buyer have faith) rather than [the dictum] caveat emptor (let the buyer beware)[per typical commerce]. This social contract imparts great freedom on all professions, but with this freedom comes great responsibility. When an individual consults a member of any of the medical professions, it is reasonably [!!!] expected that the advice and treatment that he or she receives is based in science, not metaphysics or pseudoscience ['ye olde sectarian medicine']. In addition, it is reasonably expected that the services he or she receives are being provided for the primary purpose of benefiting the patient, and not for any other reason. The financial benefit to the professional is secondary, and results from the degree of clinical benefit received by the patient. Patients place their faith in the professional, and trust that they will not be subject to fraud, abuse or quackery ['ye olde sectarian medicine']. This is the social contract as it applies to chiropractic physicians [& I would add 'all who invoke the status of a healthcare professional']."

Note 01: 'trustworthy'[literally], client-centeredness, and 'overall societal well-being' are hallmarks of 'the professions' as expressed in the dictum "credat emptor." In terms of a healthcare profession, the 'knowledge and technique set' is expected to be scientific / competent as opposed to pseudoscientific / fraudulent, physicalistic / naturalistic / actual as opposed to metaphysical / supernatural / woo-woo quackery abuse.

Note 02: I list Perle [perle@bridgeport.edu; academic homepage] in terms of authorship in the title of this blog-post for no other reason than because he's a former instructor I had [for a research methods course] at the University of Bridgeport while pursuing an ND there [a fraudulently categorized degree, GALORE -- to this day, completely at odds with the above passage!!!]. Murphy [rispine@aol.com] is actually this article's lead contact.

001.b. the University of Washington School of Medicine states in "Professionalism":

"because medicine is a profession and physicians are professionals, it is important to have a clear understanding of what 'professionalism' means [...] the words 'profession' and 'professional' come from the Latin word 'professio,'which means a public declaration with the force of a promise [...] the line between a business and a profession is not entirely clear [...] one crucial difference distinguishes them: professionals have a fiduciary duty toward those they serve. This means that professionals have a particularly stringent duty to assure that their decisions and actions serve the welfare of their patients or clients, even at some cost to themselves. Professions have codes of ethics which specify the obligations arising from this fiduciary duty [...] A Physician Charter. Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium was issued jointly by the The American Board of Internal Medicine, the American College of Physicians and the European Federation of Internal Medicine in 2002. Subsequently, 90 professional associations, including most of the specialty and subspecialty groups in American medicine have endorsed the Charter. The fundamental principles of professionalism are stated as (1) the primacy of patient welfare; (2) patient autonomy; (3) social justice. Professional responsibilities that follow from these principles are commitment to competence, to honesty with patients, to confidentiality, to appropriate relationship with patients, to improving quality of care, to improving access to care, to a just distribution of finite resource, to scientific knowledge, to maintaining trust by managing conflicts of interests and to professional responsibilities."

Note: professionalism in medicine includes the principle that the patient comes first per fiduciary duty, that patients and the public are dealt with honestly [disclosure / transparency], and an overarching commitment to scientific knowledge [modern epistemic rigor].

002. naturopathy's self-labeling:

002.a. per 'of the professions' 'nonsectarian health science' by the University of Bridgeport:

002.a1. U.B.'s 'professional science' labeling, in "College of Naturopathic Medicine":

"the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine is a non-profit, co-educational professional institution which grants the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) degree to graduates who successfully complete four academic years of study including clinical training [...] naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of primary health care -- an art, science and practice of preventing, diagnosing and treating conditions of the human mind and body."

Note: naturopathy is labeled a profession, a science, and nowhere in the description is the supernatural mentioned.

002.a2. in "UB Spotlight: Health Sciences Programs":

"the University's professionally accredited health sciences programs [...include] the College of Naturopathic Medicine [...per] Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) [...] the members of the faculty include skilled instructors with backgrounds in the biomedical and clinical sciences."

Note: the label "professional" / 'of the professions', and the label of "science" upon naturopathy by UB.

002.a3. UB nonsectarian label:

U.B. also is chartered & self-labeled "nonsectarian," and society was assured of this in 1995 by its President, per the New York Times, two years before the entry of the first students into U.B.'s naturopathy college & three years before my own entry.

002.b. per 'of the professions' by NDs Stephen P. Myers, Assunta Hunter, Pamela Snider, & Jared L. Zeff in "An Introduction to Complementary Medicine" {edited by naturopath Robson} (ISBN 1741140544; 2004):

"naturopathic medicine [...is a] profession [p.048...] the philosophy-based approach defining the profession [vitalism, et al....] the profession's ability to consistently voice its philosophy [...] the profession's unique identity [...] in 1986 the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [was established as] a newly revived professional association [...and] commissioned Dr. Pamela Snider and Dr. Jared Zeff to create a unifying definition of naturopathic medicine [...via] input from the entire US profession [...] the committee found a single element of agreement among the profession upon which it built its process. This element was the general agreement that the profession was unified by a philosophy [vitalism, et al....] the committee sifted through input from the profession cataloging six principles upon which the profession generally agreed [...] these six principles were placed before the House of Delegates of the AANP at its annual conference in September 1989 at Rippling River, Oregon, which unanimously approved them, reconfirming and articulating in modern terms its core principles as a professional consensus [p.049...this] profession [p.052...our] profession [p.059...our] profession [p.060...] one significant interprofessional challenge [etc....] another interprofessional challenge [etc....] interprofessional communication [etc....] the professionalization of naturopathic clinicians [etc. p.062...the] rapid professional evolution within naturopathic medicine [etc....] naturopathic and orthodox health [p.065] professionals [etc....] many challenges will need to be met by the profession [etc....] those within the [naturopathic] profession generally see the future as positive and the potential of their medicine and profession as immense [p.066]."

Note: their labeling of naturopathy as medical, philosophy-based [principally, a sectarian belief-set centered upon the science-ejected concept of vitalism {a 'purposeful life spirit bioagency' sectarian belief / article of faith} supernaturalism, and overarchingly 'of the professions.'

003. naturopathy's explicit untruthfulness:

in sum, pseudoscientific, metaphysical, supernatural, vitalistic / science-ejected, sectarian 'dogma & quackery' are being falsely postured as scientific and nonsectarian. Therein, naturopathy is not a trustworthy domain.

So, my warning as regards this OBVIOUS pseudoprofession known as naturopathic medicine:

"danger Will Robinson, unethical sectarian pseudoscience!"

Caveat emptor!!!

Centered around and obligated toward 'the science-ejected sectarian' [more often expressed in a coded / occultic manner] but claiming 'health professions scientific status', naturopathy severely violates many professional ethical rigors per healthcare, medicine, and education.