here, I cite from an Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC] web page that claims that the scientific method is overemphasized and an impediment to naturopathy's advancement:
Rubin, D. (ND SCNM 1997) states in "Alumni Career Spotlight: Daniel Rubin, ND, FABNO" [vsc 2010-09-18]:
"[his] area of focus/specialty: oncology [...] career highlights and contributions: naturopathic oncology practice (board-certified in naturopathic oncology); board of directors, Naturopathic Physicians Board of Medical Examiners, Ariz.; founding president, Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (OncANP); founding vice-chairperson, American Board of Naturopathic Oncology (ABNO) Board of Medical Examiners [...] AANMC: what is the biggest challenge in your work? [...his answer:] one of the greatest challenges we face is the widespread public belief in the scientific method [...] we’re too reliant on the scientific method, and it stands in our way of forging ahead."
Note: ISYN. Just when I think I've nothing left to write about in terms of naturopathic absurdity, I stumble across a supposed oncologist who doesn't care for use of the best kind of knowledge available in terms of the practice of medicine and a very serious disease. There's also the absurdity on this particular page wherein the label "science" is within the name one of the AANMC schools. In the top right corner, the AANMC's schools are listed, including "National University of Health Sciences."
So, science but not science, a label but not an actuality. Absurd antiscience-science. Rubin's alma mater SCNM, by the way, has employed the 'science label' for years and years. And, of course, AANMC claims the same.
In all actuality, naturopathy forges ahead by pretending science.