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.
