Tuesday, August 31, 2010

UB Naturopathy 2010 Learning Outcomes and the Reversal of Values

here, I cite from and comment upon the recently published University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine "2010 Learning Outcomes" page [see 001., below]; and then I boil it all down [see 002., below]:

001. UB's "Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) / Learning Outcomes" [vsc 2010-08-31] page states:

001.a. [bullet 3]:

"the UBCNM graduate will value and apply the primary principles of naturopathic medicine including: [...B3#2] to act in cooperation with the healing power of nature [HPN / coded vitalism...B3#6] demonstrate the ability to integrate naturopathic philosophy and principles with biomedical science [and] diagnostic science [...and] promote individual and community health and well being [...B3#7] demonstrate behavior that is ethical, professional, and accountable [...B3#8] demonstrate an understanding of the principles and importance of scientific and medical research."

Note: now, to understand precisely what is being talked about in the above [UB isn't providing transparency here, but I think the public deserves to be properly informed], we need a firm description of the actual principles of naturopathy.

We need to get to 'the things themselves.'  Context is best obtained from the State of Oregon, believe it or not.  You will notice several things within this detailed / 'canonical' iteration regarding “the primary principles of naturopathic medicine” [that UB doesn't detail]: 

HPN is “life force” which is a science-ejected concept well-exiled from modern biology, and though NOT science such is claimed falsely by naturopathy as science [along with their spiritism supernaturalism]. So, overall, the idea of “integrate” [blending!] that UB speaks of is actually this absurd situation regarding knowledge: combine actual science with the hugely science-ejected and then label the whole thing science.

I call it 'epistemic conflation' which means to blend knowledge type, and 'epistemic misrepresentation', which means to mislabel discrete knowledge kind.  I don't see how this is beneficial for the community: to undermine well-define delineations, including undermining the public understanding of science.  I don't see how it is ethical [academically, commercially, medically] and professional to be so opaque and therefore manipulative.  It's sad that one has to go to the West Coast -- to the naturopathy stronghold -- to find out what is happening, per 'the things themselves,' at a younger school on the East Coast.

001.b. “[bullet 1] demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the history, principles, and philosophy of naturopathic medicine […bullet 2] apply an understanding of the history of medicine.”  

Note: there's a reason vitalism and supernaturalism - them naturopathy principles -- aren't within actual medicine, historically, scientifically, and philosophically.  They are science-ejected figmentations akin to fairy dustWhat naturopathy is doing here is combining science and religion [roughly speaking], and then falsely labeling the whole thing science while misrepresenting the whole thing in naturalistic language.   Medicine has matured into an applied science; it is not based upon coded sectarian figmentations posing as 'in evidence' as is the case with naturopathy.

002. the reversal of values:

the formulation is, overall, 'science=nonscience' OR more generally 'something=what it profoundly is not' [the ultimate reversal of value]. I term this 'the naturopathic reversal of values.'  It is absurd, it is irrational, it is insane, it is cultic.

What I don't find in naturopathyland is acknowledgment of the public's and patient's right to informed consent, which is the basis of a physician-patient relationship and a contractual milieu.

So, beware.  In naturopathyland: science is nonscience; ethical is unethical; professional is unprofessional; medicine is pseudomedicine; natural is supernatural; figmentations are 'in evidence'; rationality is insanity.

That is a comprehensive understanding of where naturopathy is...absurdity.
Post a Comment