001. Charke, K. (? ?) states in "Proposal to Alter Regulations for Naturopaths Gets Mixed Reviews" [there's quite an unintentional pun there, as you will see]:
CAND tells us that naturopathy is categorically science-based [via youtube]:
How can something CATEGORICALLY in terms of knowledge-type be both a distinction and a blending? Important: the description basically says that naturopathy is both something and nothing; that it is specially something scientific and also that it is specifically NOT that same stuff -- nonscientific. In sum it states that the scientific is also the nonscientific: this is absurd / irrational, hilarious blather -- the blended-distinct, the scientific-nonscientific. This is a kind of language from naturopathy and a kind of journalistic charity towards naturopathy that is grossly unprofessional; using language itself in manners that are truly nonsensical, logically speaking.
002. Bastyr's & the University of Bridgeport's [UB] irrational / absurd epistemics, per the conflation of the supernatural extrascientific [that means 'outside of science', for those not into etymology], science-ejected, and the scientific:
002.a. Bastyr states [the ND in (d) went there; Trevorrow, M. (ND Bastyr 2006)] in their Peterson's College Guide entry "Bastyr University":
But, you have to have a standard of comparison concerning what can truly be labeled science, I understand:
luckily, there's the National Center for Science Education [NCSE] to tell us about these ND schools that supposedly teach actual science. At NCSE, we are told that the supernatural is PROFOUNDLY not within science, through the article "Review: Of Pandas and People":
002.b. UB states:
002.b1. on their web page "UB Spotlight: Health Sciences Programs":
002.b2. UB states in "Naturopathic Principles and Practice":
NCSE states, regarding vitalism, in "National Association of Biology Teachers (1995)":
Note on (c): there is, scientifically speaking, no 'purposeful life spirit' / vital force governing health-disease and physiology. Naturopathy's treatment target, 'the maximum effect upon the vital force' -- when you uncode all this, which doesn't take much leg-work; but, few journalists ever seem to go beyond opening their own mouths and letting naturopathy fill it with its dumb-assed-ness -- is simply a fantasy.
003. Note on '(b), 002.a. & 002.b.' and naturopathic absurdity:
i. does anyone do actual journalism anymore? ii. is science just ink? [answer to i. = few; answer to ii. = no it isn't].