The Florida Connection - A Really Old and New Naturopathy Science Claim - St. Petersburg Independent 1910-10-22, NUHS 2009-12-29:

here, I cite from the St. Petersburg [Florida] Independent concerning naturopathy as "science" [see 001, below].  And then, I cite from the National University of Health Sciences recent press release [see 002., below].  Then, I make 'the Florida connection' [see 003., below]:

001. in their local news, per "A Modern Method of Practice Without the Use of Medicine", we are told in the St. Petersburg Independent:

"among our late arrivals is Dr. J.H. McGilvary, naturopathic physician, a graduate of the Texas College of Science [...] naturopathy is not a faith cure, nor a suggestion cure, nor a hypnotic cure.  It is a practical and scientific treatment of all curable diseases [...] although the Dr. has lost his eyesight, it does not handicap him in the least, but rather adds to his senses of touch and hearing, and makes them more acute, which enables him to diagnose more correctly [!]."

Note: this is accessible through books.google.com.  What interests me most is the claim of "science" placed over the naturopathic at both the subject-matter and institutional levels.

002. chiroeco.com tells us in "NUHS Awards First ND Diplomas Since 1952" [2009-12-29]:

"in historic commencement ceremonies on Dec. 17, National University of Health Sciences awarded three graduates the institution’s first doctor of naturopathic medicine degree (ND) since 1952 [...] National’s current ND program opened its doors for the first class of students in the Fall of 2006 [...] NUHS is the only naturopathic medical school in the Midwest and one of only two universities in the country to offer degrees in naturopathic medicine, chiropractic medicine, acupuncture, and oriental medicine on the same campus [UB is the other...] source: National University of Health Sciences, www.nuhs.edu."

Note: again, what interests me is the label "science" placed over the naturopathic.  The institution claims to be a "science" institution.

003. the Florida connection:

003.a. at NUHS's web site, "DC in St. Petersburg, Florida", we are told:

"National is now part of the University Partnership Center of St. Petersburg College (SPC). This [...] allows NUHS to offer its doctor of chiropractic (DC) degree on site at the St. Petersburg college campus. When you earn your DC degree from National University of Health Sciences St. Petersburg Campus [etc....this is] primary care chiropractic medicine. We prepare you to become a first contact physician with a strong foundation in basic sciences [...] National University of Health Sciences (NUHS) offers a doctor of chiropractic degree program in Lombard, Illinois, which has been accredited by the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) since 1971 and by its predecessor, the American Chiropractic Association Committee on Accreditation since 1966. [...] on April 20, 2009, National University of Health Sciences (NUHS), Lombard, Illinois, received approval from the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools to offer the Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine degree at the University Partnership Center at St. Petersburg College in Florida. The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools may be contacted at 30 N. LaSalle, Suite 2400, Chicago, Illinois, 60602-2504, or 1-800-621-7440."

Note: science, science, science.  Coincidentally, 001. and 003. above are all about St. Petersburg, Florida.  And what happened the last time a DC program was attempted in Florida, you may ask?  Nice skeptical activism: a public university wouldn't do it, due to the backlash.

NCSE's Newton on 'Science Denial', Colquhoun on Naturopathy 'Make Believe' - Philadelphia Inquirer, UPI (2009-12-24)

here, I cite from two identically dated news articles regarding science. The National Center for Science Education's [NCSE] Steven Newton [US] writes about 'science denial' in the Philadelphia Inquirer [see 001., below], while University College London's [UCL] David Colquhoun [UK] is sourced by United Press International [UPI] concerning naturopathy 'as make believe' [see 002., below]:

001. the NCSE's Newton writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer's "Science Denial is on the Rise":

"from evolution to global warming to vaccines, science is under assault from denialists - those who dismiss well-tested scientific knowledge as merely one of many competing ideologies. [Such] science denial goes beyond skeptical questioning [...and] attack[s] the legitimacy of science itself […] despite such misleading hyperbole, science is meritocratic […] research is judged by the data and methodology […] as the great physicist Richard Feynman noted, 'science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.' Science requires conclusions about how nature works to be rooted in evidence-based testing […] science denialism works differently. [E.g.] creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution. Global-warming denialists are unimpressed by climate data. Denialists ignore overwhelming evidence […] cloak[ing] themselves in the mantle of science without being restricted by its requirements [...] they could submit it to scientific conferences and journals, inviting analysis by scientists. But, knowing their arguments don't hold water, they spread misinformation in [publication] arenas not subject to expert scrutiny […] understanding science has never been more important than it is today."

Note: this 'cloaking' is an m.o. I continually observe naturopathy doing. When naturopathy claims that within science is nonscience, naturopathy offers no scientific findings or scientific methodologies to support that.  Naturopathy writes it -- only -- as if then magically such irrationality is then made true and rational.  I've said this many times: it's as though science for naturopathy is a letterhead on a piece of paper, and they magically believe that whatever they then write underneath that 'science' letterhead is then science.  Naturopathy is quite fantastical, and quite absurd.

002. UCL's David Colquhoun is sourced by the UPI in “Britain Urged to Crack Down on Remedies”:

“the British government and doctors should do more to crack down on those who promote [pseudo!] remedies such as curing AIDS with vitamins [...] says David Colquhoun of the University College London [...per] an editorial in the Christmas issue of the British Medical Journal [...he wrote] colleges 'avoid the hard questions by setting up committees' while the government's department of health refers the hard questions to the Prince of Wales' Foundation for Integrated Health, which was asked to draft 'national occupational standards' for make believe subjects like 'naturopathy' [oh snap!...] Colquhoun cites two recent examples [...] the recent homeopathy 'evidence check' conducted by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee [...admitted] 'that there was no good evidence that homeopathy worked [at all, because it's a pseudoremedy labeled, by the way, by naturopathy 'clinical science'...and] Colquhoun criticizes the head of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for suggesting that homeopathy cannot be tested by proper randomized controlled trials [his original editorial submission to the BMJ is here].”

Note: I would argue that naturopathy is similarly a form of such 'science denial', except in naturopathy's case they deny:

a) basic biological science concerning physiology [e.g. by posing vitalistic and supernatural / immaterial forces as being fundamentally in control of physiology!];

b) basic pharmacological science, particularly as concerns homeopathy. 

SGU on Naturopathy - 2009-12-02, Thoms & Novella:

recently, the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast dated 2009-12-02 discussed skeptical activism in Canada by Skeptic North aimed at exposing naturopathy.  For the full podcast, click here.  Here are some excerpts: 

[SN is SGU host Steve Novella; ST is SGU guest and editor of SkepticNorth.com Steve Thoms]

"SN: Steve is the editor and chief of Skeptic North which is a skeptical group, pan-Canadian blog. And we are here to talk to you about one issue that you guys have been tackling and that is the attempt that's being made by naturopaths in Canada to gain the right to prescribe medications [1].

[...]

ST: The problem is that naturopaths do not have the medical training to prescribe medical drugs. And that's kind of the bottom line here. The counter-argument that we've faced a lot is that naturopaths have eight years of education, but that's taking into account four years of university training in the undergrad. which they're not affiliated with.  Like no naturopathic college in Canada is associated with a Canadian university. So that's kind of taking credit for the Canadian university system. And also, eight years -- I mean -- I can study unicorn breeding for eight years and that doesn't mean that unicorns exist. Quality of education also matters here [2].

SN: Right, of course I agree with you. Again, for our listeners who may not be aware, naturopaths are really like a cult-like medical pseudoprofession. They believe in a hodge-podge of just about any unscientific modality that's out there. [E.g.] they prescribe homeopathy and acupuncture. And they believe in a lot of unsubstantiated notions [...] my colleague Harriet Hall calls it Tooth Fairy science, which I think is perfect. You could do all kinds of scientific studies about the Tooth Fairy and how the size of the tooth relates to the amount of money that gets left behind, whatever, it doesn't make the Tooth Fairy real. The underlying premises are pseudoscientific and so the entire endeavor is false. And this also gets to the notion that this is naturopaths trying to expand the scope of their practice, which usually happens once they get licensure and also trying to function as primary care healthcare providers being the first person that somebody sees when they're sick which is scary because they don't have the training and they don't have the dedication to science. This a very unfortunate thing [3]."

Notes:

[1]: it is not uncommon in the US for NDs to have gained legal access to prescribe certain 'medical drugs', but it varies from state to state.  In Connecticut, NDs have no such script rights, as far as I know.  In places like Oregon, the ND 'formulary' is large.  Overall, it is rather strange that NDs have rights to such compounds, since they do not abide by modern scientific premises, particularly the scientific premises of pharmacology.  This is evident in naturopathy's huge obligation to the pseudomedicinal system known as homeopathy, whose pills are claimed as medicinal / active when actually 'just water' / inert.

[2]: well, I went to ND school for four years and I can say that it truly is as absurd as 'unicorn breeding'.  When the label science us placed upon sectarian principles that are hugely science-ejected, such irrationalism / academic negligence is ethically revolting. 

[3]: yes, cult-like and a pseudoprofession.  In a deposition at 2002 about, I labeled naturopathy "cultic mystical weirdness".  It's 'mental circuit-blowing stupid' hasn't gotten any less. As scientific as the Tooth Fairy, as in completely false to this day in terms of its claim that that which is scientific is also that which is science-ejected / not-science-supported / nonscientific.  Science is a label naturopathy uses to promote what is actually hugely science-ejected.

I would argue, though, that naturopathy is categorically different than actual academic science.  It's not an issue of quality then, it is an issue of false posturing and unfair trade.  It is not what it says it is clinically or academically as a whole: so, commerce occurs and the initial conditions are untrue.

That's my take, from the inside: for naturopathy, science is a false label camouflaging their sectarian absurdity.

That ND Vitalism Belief - Yang ND, Vancouver:

here, I cite from a recent article written by a Vancouver, Canada ND claiming that Traditional Chinese Medicine is much better than modern scientific medicine [see 001., below]; and then I muse:

001. naturopath Yang, J. (ND CCNM) informs us in Canada's South Asian Post article "Is Chinese Medicine Better For Every Day Health?" (2009-12-2x):

"traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is based on philosophical principles [a.k.a. archaic beliefs / articles of faith / superstitions] such as the yin and yang theory and five elements theory [...] the belief [truly] is that any presenting symptoms are a manifestation of illness. Illness, in turn, occurs only when there is an imbalance in a person’s energy (qi) flow [a.k.a. vitalism...] TCM practitioners determine the cause of illness, better yet, investigate what is causing the disturbance in qi flow [vitalism] throughout the body [...] the practice of traditional Chinese Medicine has been documented for well over 2000 years and has successfully withstood the trials of time [bullshit...] in contrast, Western medicine is rooted in scientific knowledge and evidence [true...] it takes a more superficial look at the body [false...] the main concern is that steps have been taken only to mask the illness [false...] both types of medicine have their own validity within the medical field [bullshit]."

Note: one would think, from this article, that modern medicine is quite second-rate compared to TCM.  Yet, that would be false in this sense at least: at least modern medicine is based upon science, not sectarian belief / figmentation / superstition posing as sense / falsely claiming to understand how the world works

'Theory' in science has a very specific context, and here, theory is being used in that 'it's just a theory' kind of vernacular sense [whereby I mean 'outside of science' sense].  'Energy' is also a scientific word being co-opted here to represent an immaterial, nonphysical animating force inhabiting matter.  There simply is no such qi.  There is no such vitalistic energy: biological entities are chemically-based. 

So, how can it be said that TCM has truly "withstood the trials of time"?  And, I highly enjoy the 'in contrast': as if to say, 'in contrast, this other stuff is merely based upon the most accurate modeling of reality humankind has ever invented'.  I guess if favored Tooth Fairy premises are ignored and facts are instead valued more, NDs call such an approach 'superficial'. Yet, modern medicine is obligated to scientific knowledge, and therein to claim that prescientific ideas have validity within a domain that has ejected such - is absurd.

002. this article is a prime example of naturopathy's m.o:

a) claim medical and scientific expertise, and professions-level status [while employing an argument that is quite irrational];

b) combine what is legitimate medical science and what HUGELY isn't, and call the latter equal and yet BETTER. But, something is not the same as something it is different from, and it is nonsensical to combine ideas that are diametrically opposed / HUGELY in conflict and then deny the internal  inconsistency.

Note: archaic, prescientific 'medical' belief systems are often called philosophical, time-tested, and claim to 'treat the one true cause'.  But, who would trust thinking -- if you want to call it that -- that claims that hugely science-ejected concepts such as vitalism are a legitimate basis for medical care?

We are told at the start of the article: "experienced and professional experts answer questions relating to all round health in Canada."  When epistemic conflation is the m.o. -- that is, when all knowledge is muddle and given equal status -- I would beware as opposed to trust. And if I can't trust you because you are based on crank ideas, you're not an expert and you are not professional. To quote Francis Crick:

“and so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow.”

But, with naturopathy, yesterday, today and tomorrow are indiscernible -- because, within naturopathy, it is considered reasonable to label that which it is not.

2010 UK Anti-Homeopathy Campaign:

Consumer Health Digest [2009-12-24 (#09-52)] has announced / relays this message:

"skeptics in the United Kingdom have announced their intention to raise public awareness that homeopathy is quackery. The campaign will launch early in 2010. People who wish to join or monitor the campaign can register on http://www.1023.org.uk/ ."

Note: homeopathy is, of course, part of naturopathy's absurdity (e.g.: here, here).

002. at that link, we're told:

"homeopathy is a pre-scientific and absurd pseudoscience. Yet it persists today as an accepted complementary medicine, largely because people don't know what it is. The 10:23 Campaign aims to show the public what homeopathy is and explain how we know it doesn't work. It will launch in early 2010.

Note: the campaign,  '10 to the 23rd', has the motto "Homeopathy: There's Nothing In It".  The name of the campaign seems to be an abbreviation for 'Avogadro's Number' which is often quantified as 6.022 x

10²³. 

The "Irrational Superstitious" Central Premise of Naturopathy - UB, Blackford:

here, I compare two claims about vitalism.  The University of Bridgeport claims that within science is the vitalistic [see 001., below].  Philosopher, author, and critic Russell Blackford states otherwise [see 002., below]:

001. the University of Bridgeport states in "Naturopathic Principles and Practice":

"Principles and Practice 511 - Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine II [...] in addition to employing various natural medicines, students will gain an important perspective of the vital force and its role in the healing process, when used in conjunction with naturopathic principles."

Note: you can also get UB vitalism full-force here.  So, vitalism is essential to naturopathy.  I must remind readers that UB claims naturopathy, strictly speaking, is "science" / that a vital force is an objective scientific fact [see p.072, "the principles are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances"] / survives scientific scrutiny, while vitalism is preponderantly science-ejected! 

002. Blackford, R. (? ?) states in "Bioethics Versus Liberal Society: A Reply to Margaret Somerville" (Quadrant, 2001-09-01 - homepage) [free registration may be required for the full text][for Blackford's Wikipedia entry, click here]:

"Kitcher rejects the presence of any 'vital force' or 'vital substance' in biological processes [...] this is correct. Vitalism is a discredited theory and no principled objection can be made to the ultimate reduction of biological systems and entities to their physical components […] I do reject the position that living things or biological processes contain some kind of non-physical vital substance or force […] vitalist positions are not supported by reason or by any other supposed 'way of knowing' [...] position[s] akin to vitalism might aptly be referred to as 'irrational' or 'superstitious'".

Note: oh, snap.

"Cancer Was Cured in 1934" - West, S. (ND INHS) & Pseudomedicine:

hey, bet you didn't know this: according naturopath West, cancer is curable with a Rife machine [see 001., below]. But, be skeptical, as  Wikipedia has some interesting things to say about Rife's contraption [see 002., below]: 

001. West. S. (ND INHS) states in "Natural health: A Look at a Controversial Cancer Treatment" (2009-12-18):

"as a naturopath and health researcher [...] once in a while I find an herb, nutrient or device that is truly remarkable [...such as] the Rife Frequency Generator [...made by] Royal Raymond Rife [...which is one of] Rife’s great scientific works [...I've observed] Rife Generators and ionic foot bathes [at an Arcata clinic...it's] a miraculous tool for defeating cancer and a host of other diseases [...] I never seriously investigated the claim until early in 2009 [...] my good friend Scott lent me his unit for my practice [...] in any case the generator is programmed to deliver micro current technology to destroy virtually all known pathogenic bacteria, virus and fungi. This is so because all life forms have a micro electric signature that maintains their life force [(vitalism!)...it] destroy[s] these organisms without harming the host [...] in 1934 [Rife treated] 16 stage four terminal cancer patients [...in] a 70-day trial [...] by the end of the trial [...] 14 of the 16 terminal patients were cancer free while the remaining two took another 60 days to be cured [...so,] cancer was cured in 1934."

Note: a Rife organization still claims that cancer was cured by Rife with his device.  "Life force" is a fundamental tenet of naturopathy's doctrine, and it simply doesn't exist.

002. Wikipedia states in "Royal Rife":

"Royal Raymond Rife (May 16, 1888 – August 5, 1971) was an American inventor known for his belief that he could observe and render inert a number of viruses which he thought were causal factors in several diseases, most notably cancer. The observations were made though a specially designed optical microscope [...] Rife's claims could not be independently replicated, and active scientific interest in the devices had dissipated by the 1950s [...] an analysis by Electronics Australia found that [...a] Rife device consisted of a nine-volt battery, wiring, a switch, a timer and two short lengths of copper tubing, which delivered an 'almost undetectable' current unlikely to penetrate the skin. Several marketers of such devices have been convicted for health fraud, and in some cases the Rife devices have led to the deaths of cancer patients who used them instead of medical therapy. Rife devices are a subset of radionics devices, which have been classified as pseudomedicine."

Note: a casual Google search resulted in this Ontario ND's practice, Pragnell, N.R. (ND OCNM 1981), who states: "radionics is a healing technique directed at a patient's subtle energy fields."  Again, imaginary vital forces and what likely would also be termed pseudomedicine.

A Google News Archival Search For 2009, >vitalism science<:

here, I do a search with news.google.com using the terms >science vitalism< [see 001., below]:

001. for the year 2009 only, current results that occur are only June through December [up to today's date, 2009-12-15, to be exact] and here they are:

001.a. a Salon 2009-09-17 review of "The Age of Wonder" by Holmes, R. (? ?) (ISBN 0375422226, 2009) titled "The Beauty and Terror of Science" by Berger, K. (? ?) which states:

"Holmes limns the darkness with a scintillating chapter on Mary Shelley and 'Frankenstein,' describing how her novel arose out [of] the popular 'vitalism' debates between physicians who argued that human life was animated by some external force like electricity, and those, such as fearless young doctor William Lawrence, who argued there was no such thing, that the 'human body is merely a complex physical organization,' Holmes writes."

Note: of course, this 'debate' is a little archaic.  The idea that the 'what makes lifeliness argument' essentially concerns 'the physical' versus 'the electrical' is nowadays silly, since both are physical.  Electricity at that time was little understood and rather magically imbued. It served to represent the science-ejected idea of a vital principle [there really is no such thing!] that was apart from 'the physical', and yet mystically animated or ensouled the physical. The book is recommended by the reviewer.  I personally highly enjoy Frankenstein in its full historical context.  I also enjoy noticing that science-fiction as a genre has much of its origins, as is often observed, in the literature of a woman writer!

001.b.a 2007 Nature Genetics article titled "Cipher Sleuth" by Goldman, M.A. (? ?) which I don't have free text access to and which apparently has been dated / spidered by Google 2009-06-15.

Note: FFS, it's 2009 and information really needs to be easily available, not locked up in [obscure] publications with hilariously overpriced access fees!

001.c. a 2002 Skeptical Inquirer article by De Robertis, M. (? ?) titled "A [Canadian] University's Struggle With Chiropractic" which states:

"chiropractic has remained on the margins by choice, refusing even today to reject vitalism in all its guises [...] there is considerable doubt that a four-year university program culminating in a D.C. degree is necessary to treat musculoskeletal conditions, something conventional therapists do with comparable effectiveness but without the vitalistic baggage [...] even if some alternative therapies are eventually found to be effective and safe, until colleges adopt contemporary biomedical paradigms instead of millennia-old vitalistic notions - i.e., get rid of the nonsense in their curricula and make an attempt to [actually] educate its practitioners - no university should contemplate an affiliation."

Note: hear, hear. Again, this has been [falsely, sort of] dated by Google's algorithm 2009-06-06, likely because that was the last respidering though published earlier at an older URL.  This is an excellent article, in my view.

001.d. readers' responses to a Sydney Morning Herald 2009-06-15 article by Simon, B. (? ?) that includes this comment by Dunlop, R. (? ?) "Vice-President of Australian Skeptics, Petersham":

"it appears Australia is about to repeat Britain's mistakes about regulation of alternative medicine. It should be self-evident that it makes no sense to set educational standards in a subject without having decided whether that subject is nonsense. If it is, what does 'educational standards' mean? Your article cites naturopathy, which subscribes to a form of pre-19th-century vitalism. I fail to understand what it means to be properly qualified in ideas that the educated world left behind 200 years ago."

Note: yup.

001.e. a New York Times book review that uses the term "literary vitalism".

001.f. a New York Times book review that is similar to the Salon review:

"Holmes devotes a chapter to 'Frankenstein,' placing Mary Shelley’s 'ghost story' in the context of the [then] contemporary debate about vitalism."

001.g. a 2006 Nature Chemical Biology article titled "The Origins of Chemical Biology" which doesn't provide free direct text access.  But, through the magic of a Google web search, I believe it states:

"chemical biology has historical roots that date back to the birth of chemistry and biology as distinct sciences [...] chemical synthesis requires no ‘living’ or ‘vital force’ to make biologically active compounds. Remarkably, some [false!] belief in vitalism still persists within current popular culture."

001.h. a 2000 Skeptical Inquirer article "The Roots of Qi" by Mainfort, D. (? ?)  which states:

"according to ancient Chinese medicine [...] illnesses were viewed as an imbalance of qi, or vital energy, in the body. Qi was believed to exist everywhere in the universe - a life force such as that referred to in pre-scientific Western medicine as élan vital. Vitalism is the belief in an invisible, intangible, unique form of energy that is supposedly responsible for all of the activities of a living organism. The vital force in Chinese traditional medicine is called qi, the concept upon which acupuncture is based [...] the earliest known record of the term qi occurs in the book Liji, prior to the Spring and Autumn period, between three and four thousand years ago. At that time there was no modern physiology or biochemistry, nor was there understanding about nutrition or the healing mechanisms of the body. The existence of cells, blood circulation, neurology and hormones were also unknown."

Note: an yet, this figmentation is what naturopathy claims as able to survive scientific scrutiny.

002. obviously, there is a certain amount of heavy-handed automation happening here, and what I just listed is a snapshot of the abilities [and lack therein, to some extent] of Google's news archive search engine.

AANMC Informs Us of UBCNM's "Science" status - 2009-12:

here, I cite from a recent Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC] publication labeling naturopathy "science" [see 001., below]:

001. the AANMC recently published "UBCNM Increases Efforts in Integrated Medical Care" which states:

"the University of Bridgeport School of Naturopathic Medicine is one of the AANMC schools [...] UBCNM has partnered with St. Vincent’s Medical Center [...per] Dr. David M. Brady [is] vice provost of the University of Bridgeport Health Sciences Division [...] UBCNM professors' research published [...] UBCNM’s Dr. Jody Noé recently authored an article [...in] Integrative Cancer Therapies [...] ICT is the first journal to spearhead and focus on a new and growing movement in cancer treatment, a movement that emphasizes the scientific understanding of alternative medicine [...] UBCNM faculty member, Dr. Jared Skowron, will also be published this month. Fundamentals of Naturopathic Pediatrics [...] is a reference text for diagnostics and treatment of common pediatric conditions [...] it documents the scientific proof that natural remedies have been studied and are a safe and effective option when treating children [...] Coquina Deger.  Managing Editor, AANMC.  www.AANMC.org."

Note: so, we're told that naturopathy is academically "science", that it is "scientific", and supported by "scientific proof".

002. naturopathy loves to label itself scientific . [e.g.:

].

003. naturopathy is fundamentally based upon ideas that are science-ejected.

004. you could blow a brain gasget trying to get a handle on this absurdity.

ISBN 0738710776 - The Nonscientific Status of Vitalism - Forciea 2007:

recently, I added the following citation to my appendix titled "The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism".  The author admits that vitalism thoroughly lacks scientific support [see 001., below], but then promotes an analogous figmentation that to me resembles science-fiction and science-illiteracy [see 002., below].  Then, I quote from Richard Dawkins [see 003., below] and the National Center for Science Education [see 004., below]:

001. the newest appendix addition:

Forciea, B. (DC Parker) states:

.

[in "Unlocking the Healing Code: Discover the 7 Keys to Unlimited Healing Power"(2007)]

.

[Note: a woo-proponent's argument for sCAM]

.

"in the philosophical camp called vitalism, vitalists believed in a vital force, a life force that permeated all living beings.  The vital force is what kept things alive, but no one was ever able to measure this mysterious force [p.013...] believers in vitalism believe [!!!] in a vital force that permeates all life.  Some call it chi, others prana, still others energy.  The presence of the vital force is what separates the living from nonliving.  Alternative systems of healing work to support the vital force [e.g., naturopathy].  Science has a problem with vitalism.  Science has never been able to measure the vital force or even a vital energy […] this energy is not in any form known to science [yet energy, by definition in terms of science, is quantifiable!!!].  Scientists have yet to measure a vital force […] science's view of life is founded on a different philosophy [!!!] than vitalism.  At the core of science and medicine is mechanistic materialism [!!!].  In this view life emerged from matter.  There is no hidden vital force, no living energy.  Life is seen as a self-sustaining process that produces complex structures [p.003]";

.

(ISBN 0738710776)

 Note: I'm highly enjoying the verbiage "believers in vitalism believe".  Vitalism is, after all, nonfactual.  It is also quite a strain to state that 'how science collectively explains its factual collection is merely a philosophy', as if all ideas / ideations / views are of equal epistemic status.

002. the author's leap into science-fiction and -illiteracy:

"science does have an answer to the mystery of the vital force […there's] a ubiquitous field of information […] the zero-point field […] a sea of subatomic particles popping into and out of existence [(i.e. dark matter) p.003...so] the essence of the vital force is [this] information […] information is the link between mechanistic materialism and vitalism [p.004...whereby] living beings actually thwart the immutable law of entropy [p.013].”

Note: so, 'the vital force figmentation' is claimed to be essentially "information" which is comprised of dark matter, and life is claimed as able to defy nature's physical laws.  I've often gotten the impression that nebulousities like vitalism, when not able to claim tangible evidence in direct support of their supposed existence, then veil themselves in another nebulousity / mysticism layer.  Dark matter is that new veil, here.  Also, like creationists who want to supernaturalize biology, vitalists often claim that life defies physical laws and therefore vitalists are minimally indirectly categorizing life as a supernatural event / phenomena.  The vital force is about as mysterious as the Tooth Fairy, or fairies under the garden.

003. regarding vitalism and information in terms of the life science / biology, biologist Richard Dawkins states [coincidentally on that same appendix page I've linked to above]:

[in "The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing"(2008)]

.

"what neither Mendel nor anyone else before 1953 knew was that genes themselves are digital, within themselves [...] 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]";

.

(ISBN 0199216800)

Note: true information, in the sense of biology and its phenomena, is genetic.  And that is biochemical.

004. and regarding misconceptions surrounding life and thermodynamic law, the National Center for Science Education has this interesting explanation here:

"if the earth were a closed system, then every living organism on earth would be defying entropy on a daily basis. But, the earth is not a closed system; thus, respiration, growth, reproduction, and evolution happen on earth on a daily basis without violating the second law of thermodynamics."

Note: when looked upon as a whole, in terms of our solar system, life does not defy physical law.

University of Bridgeport's "Health Science" Advertising 02 [pictoral] - 2009-12:

here, I share a picture I took today along I-95 in Stratford, CT of a billboard advertising the University of Bridgeport's “Health Science” division [see 001., below]. Now, it may shock the uniformed to know that: a) within this supposed “science” category, UB includes naturopathy [see 002., below] because b) naturopathy has, as 'it's essential worldview', a context exterior to science since naturopathy REQUIRES -- by its own definition -- the science-ejected concepts of vitalism [see 003., below] and supernaturalism [see 004., below]. So, WOW [see 005., below]:

001. this is a shot I just took this afternoon along I-95 in Stratford, CT with my Pentax K-1000 [go chemical image media!; sorry for the support wires, but this was the safe way to get the shot, as opposed to roadside]:

Note: it says "UBelong Here.  www.bridgeport.edu. UB.  Our degrees in Health Science make everyone feel better.  University of Bridgeport.  Opening doors.  Building futures."

002. here is where UB includes naturopathy in their "science" academic category, stating in "UB Spotlight: Health Sciences Programs":

"the University's professionally accredited health sciences programs are housed in the Fones School of Dental Hygiene, the College of Chiropractic, the College of Naturopathic Medicine, the Acupuncture Institute, and the Nutrition Institute."

Note: we have the claim that naturopathy is ethically 'of the professions' and epistemically of 'science'.

003. UB states, explictly, the science-ejected concept of vitalism that undergirds naturopathy ESSENTIALLY here, in "Six Guiding Principles.  Guiding Principle # 1. The Healing Power of Nature":

"nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process."

Note: if anyone is in doubt about naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism, visit their primary textbook's sample chapter here. Page 30 has the gem statement: "Dr. Sensenig presented 'Back to the Future: Reintroducing Vitalism as a New Paradigm'".  Dr. S. was my teacher at UB, the founding dean of that naturopathy school, and the founding president of the AANP.  Here are Sensenig's notes equating this "life force" with the notion of 'god power within' -- an article of faith that I've termed autoentheism.

004. and, of course, supernaturalism runs rampant in naturopathy, supposedly a "science" here, in "A Systems Approach to Wellness [by] Joseph Pizzorno N.D.":

"the routes to total wellness [...per our] seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body [...include] our life-force (or spirit) [...] the vis medicatrix naturae (life-force) deep within us."

Note: notice how the science-ejected concept of vitalism equated with supernaturalism, by JEP, the don of naturopathy per his self-label as "one of the world's leading authorities on science-based natural medicine".  And supernaturalism is science-ejected.

005. so, my response to this "science" label upon naturopathy is UB is WOW:

as in "Danger, Will Robinson, unethical sectarian pseudoscience."  How do they get away with this?

What's rather ironic about his whole this is the name "Barrett" in the billboard.  Barrett, in another context, has much to say about these "muddleheads".