Naturopathy et al. as Antiscience & Unfair Trading [UK] - Bodmer, Colquhoun, Ogilvie, & Rothwell in The Times 2009-01-30:

here, I excerpt from two 2009 letters in The Times [UK; see 001. & 003.b, below] and a 2007 article in Nature [see 003.a., below], per alternative medicine as 'unfair trading and antiscience' -- and I make 'the Connecticut Connection' [US] per the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM] and Acupucture Institute's [UBAI] "Health Sciences Programs" false labeling [see 004., below]:

001. a recent letter to the editors of The Times, titled "The Question About Alternative Medicine: The Government Needs to Make Unified Decisions on Alternative Medicine" (2009-01-30) states:

"we would like to congratulate the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Salford, Professor Michael Harloe, for his principled decision to drop all the university’s programmes associated with complementary medicine within the School of Community, Health Sciences & Social Care. This includes its 'homeopathy in practice' degree [...] although universities are now taking sensible actions, government policy in the area of regulation of alternative medicine is in urgent need of revision [...] one of the 31 commercial practices that are in all circumstances considered unfair is 'falsely claiming that a product is able to cure illnesses, dysfunction or malformations'. One part of government seeks to endorse unproven and disproved treatments, at the same time as another part makes them illegal [...and it is signed:]

Sir Walter Bodmer -- FRCPath, FRS, FMedSci, FRCP (hon), FRCS(hon), Cancer & Immunogenetics, Laboratory Weatherall, Institute of Molecular Medicine, Oxford.

Professor David Colquhoun --FRS, Research Professor of Pharmacology, University College, London.

Dame Bridget Ogilvie -- AC, DBE, FRS, FAA, Visiting Professor at UCL, past Director of the Wellcome Trust.

Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell -- FRS, FMedSci, FRCP (hon), MRC Research Professor, University of Manchester

[I have included their entire credentials as provided by Colquhoun's post]."

Note: FRS is "Fellow of the Royal Society", "the national academy of the sciences in the United Kingdom." Excellent!

002. Colquhoun additionally writes, in "A Letter to the Times, and Progress at Westminster" (2009-01-30):

"you can’t hope to regulate alternative treatments in any sensible way while continuing to push under the carpet the crucial question of which ones work and which don’t [...] we are talking about 'bachelor of science' degrees in things like homeopathy and naturotherapy [!!!; essentially, both are 'the naturopathic'!]. These are things that are not science at all. In fact they are antiscience to their core [this links to the Nature article {see 003.a., below}...] in the same [Times] issue, there was a related article by the Times' education editor, Alexandra Frean: 'Universities Drop Degree Courses in Alternative Medicine' [see 003.b., below]."

003. Colquhoun in Nature 2007, and The Times' Frean 2009:

003.a. Colquhoun writes in "Science Degrees Without the Science" (2007-03-22) :

"the least that one can expect of a bachelor of science (BSc) honours degree is that the subject of the degree is science [...] most complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is not science because the vast majority of it is not based on empirical evidence [...e.g.] homeopathy [...] is much more like religion than science [...] many of the doctrines of CAM, and quite a lot of its practitioners, are openly anti-science [...] gobbledygook is being taught in some UK universities as though it were science [...] homeopathy is the most obvious delusion because the 'medicine' contains no medicine [...] other CAM courses are in aromatherapy, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, reflexology, osteopathy, therapeutic bodywork, naturopathy, ayurveda, shiatsu and qigong. None of these is, by any stretch of the imagination, science, yet they form part of BSc degrees [p.373]."

Note 01: for some context regarding this journal, Wikipedia describes Nature as:

" a prominent scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869. Although most scientific journals are now highly specialized, Nature is one of the few journals, along with other weekly journals such as Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that still publishes original research articles across a wide range of scientific fields."

Note 02: the HUGE IRONY that has not been lost on Dr. Bob Ironic [who is not a Dr. of any kind!] is that NATURE-opathy which markets itself as NATURE-al, has nothing to do with the modern scientific context of Nature!

003.b. the Times' Frean, A. (? ?) writes in "Universities Drop Degree Courses in Alternative Medicine" (2009-01-30):

"Universities are increasingly turning their backs on homeopathy and complementary medicine amid opposition from the scientific community to 'pseudo-science' degrees [...] the decisions by Salford and Westminster open a new chapter in the fierce debate about the place of awarding of Bachelor of Science degrees in subjects that are not science."

004. 'the Connecticut Connection' - a nonscientific mascarade, by extension:

004.a. the Univeristy of Bridgeport labels naturopathy and acupuncture "health science" [falsely; I'll specify also that all of naturopathy claims itself overall as scientific; note that both programs are run by AANP NDs!];

004.b. while:

004.b1. 'the entire naturopathic' is based upon a sectarian idea [vitalism, for starters {acupuncture is essentially vitalistic as well}; supernatural-spiritism, teleology and etc.] that is severely science-ejected [HUGELY!!!] while the University labels itself nonsectarian [how is a mandatory, dogmatic, supernatural, autoentheistic figmentation -- a 'purposeful life spirit bioagency equated with god / the divine' (UBCNM); or animism / animatism (UBAI) -- NOT sectarian?];

004.b2. while UBCNM's ND contains mandatory courses in:

homeopathy [which the NPLEx national board exam that UBCNM has designed their curriculum towards calls homeopathy a "clinical science"!], and ayurveda [which UB labels a "natural science"!];

004.b3. while UB has an "Acupuncture Institute" that grants an M.S. [yet, acupuncture is based on prescientific premises and is essentially an eleborate placebo mascarading as a potent disease-treating system!];

004.b4. and both programs practice out of a supposed "Health Science Center" as part of a "Division of Health Sciences".

Misrepresentation of Knowledge IS 'The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine' - BCNA 2009, ISBN 9780443073007:

here, a little exercise in contradiction! The British Columbia Naturopathic Association [BCNA] strongly claims naturopathy is a science and incompletely explains naturopathy's central premise [of vitalism], while actual science speaks oppositely about 'what is essentially the naturopathic' [the vitalistic; see 001., below]; I then cite naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise from naturopathy's central textbook [see 002., below] and compare it to scientific consensus [see 002.'s notes, below]:

001. BCNA's Cassie, G. (? ?) states in "The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" [a web address that actually has naturopathy spelled wrong in it!]:

"alternative medicine is the medicine of the 21st century [...] many people have chosen naturopathic doctors (NDs) as their primary health care professional [!!!{professions claim}...] naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [!!!...] the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [...] is threefold: [#1] vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]: the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment. NDs believe in the recuperative power of the organism, given the correct climate for healing [...we're] embracing these tenets, on a science-based platform [!!!...] 'a comprehensive foundation in the biological and biomedical sciences' [!!!...] the same scientific fashion [!!!...] the scientific basis and validity of naturopathic protocols [!!!...] naturopathic journals [...] 'the division between alternative and orthodox medicine is not of a scientific nature'[!!!]."

Note: the HUGE assertion that naturopathy, with its central premise of VMN, is SCIENCE. But, in a nutshell, this is bullshit:

a) the coding VMN, the central premise of naturopathy, is, after all, when you turn that rock over, naturopathy's essential vitalism disguised in naturalistic language;

b) such vitalism is hugely science-ejected;

c) yet, BCNA does not transparently explain that important fact to the public -- e.g., an honest statement might be something like "our central premise is science-ejected but we call it science, which means we're crazy-ignorant whack-a-moles pretending to be scientific medicine professionals" -- which is, minimally, dishonest and therefore professionally unethical.

002. and just to emphasize naturopathy's essential vitalism, remember that the Textbook of Natural Medicine (ISBN 9780443073007; 2006 3rd ed.) states:

"[per homeopath-naturopath Bradley, R. (ND NCNM, DHANP AANP)] the foundations of naturopathic medical philosophy are found in vitalism [!!! p.080...and, he believes, vitalism has] no conflict with the findings of biomedical science [!!! p.081 {see note 01, below -- it has only been kicked out of science!}...and supporting vitalism is, according to Bradley] the problem of entropy. Entropy is the tendency of any closed system to find equilibrium, that is, the state of least organization. In other words, systems tend to run down and become less complex over time. In defiance of this universal rule, life, up until the point of death, consistently creates more complex systems out of simple ones [see note 02., below {this 'entropy strategy' is used by creationists and vitalists to invoke supernaturalisms such as vitalism & biblical literalism -- and remember, vitalism is best explained as a 'purposeful life spirit bioagency' belief -- by falsely claiming life defies the 'laws of nature' and is therefore supernatural]."

Note 01: for naturopathy, there is obviously no difference between what is science and what is nonscience! That which is nonscience -- like the vitalistic and spiritistic supernatural -- and that which is science are all labeled science, which is an egregious misrepresentation. Yet, at an actual science organization site, the National Center For Science Education [NCSE], we find this pronouncement excluding vitalism from science [and oh, what company vitalism keeps on the trash heap of discarded ideas!] in "Scientific Integrity":

"nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom." This, contrary to Bradley's assertion, is quite a conflict, because it is an exclusion.

Note 02: and NCSE has this to say about the falsehood that life defies 'entropy' in "Creationism and the Laws of Thermodynamics":

"as long as the evolution of life on earth took longer than 10.7 or 11.8 days, the First and Second Laws [entropy is within the 2nd] of Thermodynamics are not violated, respectively."

BCMA's Mackie - NDs are NOT Science-based, 2009:

here, I quote from the British Columbia Medical Association's President regarding the nonscientific basis of naturopathy:

Wendy Stueck reports in "BCMA Chief Expresses Worry Over Expanded Role For Naturopaths" (2009-01-28):

"the head of the British Columbia Medical Association has raised concerns about proposed regulatory changes that would allow B.C. naturopaths to prescribe drugs, order lab tests and identify themselves as doctors without a qualifier, such as 'naturopathic,' in the description. 'Our main concern is safety and science,' BCMA president Bill Mackie said [...] naturopathic training institutions are not affiliated with universities and are not science based, Dr. Mackie said."

You said it, brother.

Decoding Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism - Hudson, T. (ND NCNM 1984) in Prevention 2007, ISBN 0879837888 1999:

here, I perform a typical service for the public / 'those interested' who may believe that naturopaths are 'above-board'. Well, they're not. Here's how NDs disguise their 'sectarian essential principle' [see 001., below] -- 'the science-ejected concept of vitalism' [see 002. & 003., below] -- through 'incomplete journalism' [001.a.] and 'incomplete descriptions' that NDs write in their books & web pages [001.b. & 001.c.]. Beware citizens:

001. Dr. Tori Hudson [not MD but ND], on the main ND principle:

001.a. Hudson is paraphrased in Prevention Magazine's article "World's Best Natural Cures" (2007-11):

"[per article author Wallace, H. (? ?)] one of the main principles of naturopathic medicine is the vis medicatrix naturae [VMN] -- usually interpreted as the ability of botanicals (herbs, food, etc.) to heal [p.185]."

Note: that's all that is provided regarding this MAIN ND principle!

001.b. Hudson writes in "Women's Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine" (ISBN 0879837888; 1999):

"the following seven principles are the foundation for naturopathic medicine [...#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN]. The body has the ability to establish, maintain and restore health."

Note: that's essentially all that is provided regarding this FOUNDATION ND principle. Are you starting to notice a pattern? Nowhere in the index of this book are the terms: life force, vital force, vitalism, vitalistic or aliases like qi / chi, prana, spirit etc.

001.c. finally, at Hudson's Oregon ND practice -- where she practices with fellow NDs MacDonald, Kaplan, Lewis, Vannoy, Speirs, & Skinner -- naturopathy's PRIMARY / MAIN principle is MERELY described as:

"naturopathic medicine is founded on six principles which distinguish it from all other medical approaches. [#1] The healing power of nature."

Note: and, you guessed it, that's ALL that is said about HPN there.

002. also at that practice, Hudson's biography states her affiliations:

"Dr. Hudson graduated from the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in 1984 where she has since served in many capacities: Professor, Medical Director, Associate Academic Dean, and Academic Dean. In 1990, she was awarded the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians' President's Award, and in 1999, Naturopathic Physician of the Year, and in 2003 the NCNM Pioneer award [...] she is author of the book, 'Women's Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine'."

Note: she practices in Oregon [OBNE oversight], she graduated from NCNM. She is quite the ND luminary, having taught at the oldest FNPLA / CNME school, and having been awarded more than once by the AANP - including ND of the year. I will now decode 'naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism premise' using these overarching ND organizations' own definitions of naturopathy!

003. the science-ejected sectarian vitalism that dare not speak its name, spoken otherwheres within naturopathy and falsely claimed by naturopathy as able to survive scientific scrutiny:

003.a. Oregon's OBNE states in "Naturopathy":

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.) [...] are educated in conventional medical sciences [!!!...] naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...] the healing power of nature. 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 [...this is] in fact."

Note: this is the .gov regulatory body that SUPPOSEDLY oversees Oregon NDs such as those listed above -- including Dr. Hudson & co. -- to SUPPOSEDLY protect the public.

003.b. the National College of Natural Medicine states in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [!!!...#1] the healing power of nature -- 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 [...this is] in fact."

Note: vitalism is again claimed by naturopathy's core North American school, just as it was by the State of Oregon in 003.a., as "in fact" & able to survive scientific scrutiny. This is Dr. Hudson's ND alma mater.

003.c. the Federation of Naturopathic Licensing Authorities states in "Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine":

"naturopathic medicine emphasizes the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person [IHCP]. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient's vital force [VF], respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [INHP...#1] the healing power of nature. Vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN]. 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 [LF...#3] first do no harm. Primum no nocere. Illness is a purposeful process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself."

Note: IHCP = VF = INHP = HPN-VMN = LF. This is North American naturopathy's 'umbrella consortia' which includes NCNM, OBNE, AANP and CNME etc. stating naturopathy's collectively agreed upon central premise -- vitalism.

003.d. keep in mind this ACTUAL context, when you consider naturopathy [government entities' fraud-enabling endorsements included!]:

falsely claimed as 'in fact scientific', naturopathy's essential vitalism is PROFOUNDLY science-ejected, while actual medicine ethically obligates an actual physician to scientific integrity and honesty.

Dana Ullman is Disqualified: SBM 2009-01-27:

Dr. Harriet Hall, in response to homeopath Dana Ullman's ravings regarding homeopathy, wrote quiet concisely in commentary for the article "Historic College of Pharmacy to Honor Homeopathy Leader" (2009-01-26) by D.J. Kroll:

"Dana is not playing by the rules of science [...] he has disqualified himself from serious consideration by rational scientific thinkers, and has lost the right to participate in any discussion of science-based medicine. He is like a child butting into an adult discussion to say 'there really is a Tooth Fairy and I can prove it because here's the money she left me.' He is not even capable of understanding why his arguments fail to convince us, even though it has been explained to him many times in great detail. We should have compassion and be kind to the handicapped, but we shouldn’t have to pay any attention to their ravings."

Nice: reminds me of the NDs, who absurdly claim that the scientific and the profoundly science-ejected are the same thing.

Orac Chosen 'The Best Health Policies / Ethics Weblog' of 2008:

The 2008 Medical Weblog Awards have been announced, per:

"Orac of Respectful Insolence has been chosen as the Best Health Policies / Ethics Weblog of 2008. As one of the members of Science Blogs, Orac attempts to bring sanity to the world full of medical quackery. His efforts at exposing the dangers of alternative medicine, pseudoscience, and evolution deniers have made Orac one of the most recognized online activists against medical fraud and pseudoscience."

Here, here.

"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.