Tuesday, October 5, 2010

AANP's Natural Medicine Journal: Naturopathic / Holistic "Spiritual Science" Epistemic Conflation Nonsense

here, I offer an example of 'the essentially naturopathic nonsensical', such oxymoronic labelings as "spiritual science" in the AANP's Natural Medicine Journal [NMJ; see 001., below]:

001. NMJ's Freedenberg, R. (ND NECNM[IL]) states in "Naturopathic / Holistic Treatment of Mild to Moderate Depression" (2009-10)[vsc 2010-10-05]:

"[the] following are a number of evidence-based, effective alternative / naturopathic treatments [...e.g.] anthroposophic medicine [...which] is a spiritual science [...which] use[s] medicines based on homeopathic principles [(lovely)...and] uses the anthroposophic view of the human being as a blend of three interdependent aspects: the physical body; the life force [vitalism], understood as the source of growth and regeneration and sometimes called the soul [supernaturalism]; and the 'astral body,' which mediates between the body and the soul, also called the 'ego' or 'consciousness' [more supernaturalism in the sort of panpsychic / dualistic yet tripartite sense]."

Note: the equation of the holistic and alternative with the naturopathic, and the subset within that of anthroposophic "spiritual science."  That is a nonsense term, like a 'square circle.'  I've termed this error of knowledge blending "epistemic conflation."  It is a hallmark of naturopathy to inappropriately place nonscience and science-ejected matters together, such as supernaturalism and vitalism, and then falsely claim it all is within science.  Notice the immaterial / other-than-physical "life force" / "soul" equation as well.  We have stepped well outside of science and the science-based when we enter the evidenceless faithy-beliefy area of such sectarian models.  Of course, this is all one huge issue of knowledge-type incompetence / callousness.

002. now, NMJ claims, in "Statement of Purpose" [vsc 2010-10-05]:

"the Natural Medicine Journal provides scientifically-valid, patient-centered health care information [...] readers of the journal and visitors to the site will find scientifically-valid, clinically-relevant information."

Note: and here's a link to their editorial board members.

003. but, of course, the science-ejected and science-unsupported is not in any way scientifically valid / within science [that's irrational]:

Basically, what's happening is that types of knowledge are being blended, then mislabeled as one type of knowledge.

You can get a sense of that from naturopathy's own definition, wherein they state, and I use Canada's NSAND site as an example per "What is a Naturopathic Doctor?" [vsc 2010-10-05]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends [...and] cooperate[s] with other branches of medical science."

Legitimate science, though, is not also nonscience just as a square and a circle are not the same.

But, naturopathy is NUTS LIKE THAT!  Something is defined as equal to what it isn't: the utmost reversal of values.
Post a Comment