here, I reiterate my review of the Textbook of Natural Medicine, 3rd. ed. that I'd put up at Amazon five years ago, "This is Scientific Medicine?" (May 20, 2006):
"I recently viewed the new chapter concerning 'naturopathic philosophy'
[in the 3rd edition, 2005] within this text at the University of
Bridgeport's library, as there's a naturopathic school there that I
attended. The chapter discusses the premises of 'the naturopathic.' Do
you really want to be treated by a physician who conflates (blends)
supernatural, nonscientific, scientifically discarded, idealistic,
metaphysical, religious and scientific information -- and presents the
whole thing as [supposedly] scientific? [a misrepresentation: Kitzmiller
et al. v. Dover Area School District anyone?]. Check out "The
Epistemic Conflation of a School of Thought Claiming to be Scientific"
and "Why I Dropped Out of Naturopathy School" - online per me, Rob
Cullen. [THIS is future healthcare? I disagree, these prophets are truly
'facing backward']. I'm highly ethically disturbed by this text and
naturopathy, still. I'll just make one point about this book's
contention that complexity, self-regulation, and evolution indicate that
life defies the laws of natural science {and is therefore supernatural}
-- particularly the second law of thermodynamics, per physics, in terms
of life as supposedly being antientropic as indicated by life's
evolving complexity [p.081-082] -- therefore justifying, particularly,
vitalism and its handmaiden teleology-finalism. [Beliefs essential to
'the naturopathic'; explanations no longer within science at all;
rejected-knowledge in terms of the scientific].[Yes, evolution! Even
though evolution is actually the culmination of 'methodological
naturalism,' which is HOW science approaches phenomena, that is: SCIENCE
DOES NOT INVOKE THE SUPERNATURAL {which includes ideas like
naturopathy's vitalism, spiritism and kind}, science determines its
contents based upon EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, and exceptionally LEAN
explanatory approaches {per parsimony: as in 'do not multiply entities
needlessly'; that is, if not ascribed by the evidence, IT ISN'T A
SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION}]. Ah, HUGE problem. The second law deals with
closed systems and life's context is within an open system, in terms of
thermodynamics. [For the compliance of the 'living' with thermodynamic
law, see Atwater & Rosa's work in 1897 which specifically speaks in
terms of the first law {the Kinesiology Dept. of Rice University has a
nice web page on biological thermodynamics}; and see 'Biological
Thermodynamics' ISBN 0521795494 {p.321 specifically speaks in terms of
the second law}]. UB says NDs practice "scientific medicine" and
naturopathy is "health science." Hmmm, what kind of [supposed] science
text gets something so simple WRONG? Naturopathy is a 'self-labeled
science-based' area that won't let go of what has not been considered
scientific [the supernatural, the metaphysical, the idealistic, the
scientifically-refuted and -discarded -- and kind; i.e., the tenets of
their doctrines] for several decades PLUS. This text reflects
naturopathic 'epistemic mislabeling nonsense' [e.g. naturopathy's
vitalism ("life force"), spiritism ("personal spiritual development;
body, mind, spirit"), autoentheism ("god-power within"),
teleology-finalism ('life force' as "intelligent, purposeful,
goal-directed") and 'whatever else idealism'/ woo-woo AREN'T
science-based (or even empirical phenomena, as in therefore 'not
scienceable') -- but are falsely labeled as scientific by naturopathy
anyway]. In reality, minimally, a mandatory, manipulatable, spiritual,
'underlying' {metaphysical, supernatural, idealistic and what-not} 'life
force' {of many aliases} immediately responsible for states of health
and disease is INSTEAD AN ARTICLE OF FAITH {aka a 'sectarian medicine'
belief set}. Hmmm: "the most thoroughly researched and carefully
referenced text on natural medicine has been revised to include the most
up-to-date information...." It has been a couple of months since I read
that chapter, and I'm still, honestly, LAUGHING OUT LOUD. Naturopathy
is, essentially, a 'supernatural science' (an oxymoron; particularly,
vital-force-spirit, spiritism, autoentheism, and teleology-finalism as
"science-based" are arrived at through a radical unlimiting of the
boundaries of 'the scientific'); while evidence from science doesn't
support the supernatural / theistic, the metaphysical, or the
idealistic; and vitalism and spiritism, in terms of physiological
agency, are refuted biological hypotheses. -rc."
Note: and I wouldn't change a thing. Well, I would change the fact that they bamboozled me into studying the junk for four years with false labels in terms of commerce and education, derailing my life at great cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment