Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Bastyr's ND Lichtenstein Video on Naturopathy's Vital Force

here, I quote from a rather long video by Bastyr graduate and clinician ND Lichtenstein regarding that central sectarian science-ejected premise at the heart of naturopathy, the vital force [see 001., below]; then, as a reminder about the scientific status of vitalism, I quote from the New York Academy of Sciences as archived [see 002., below]:
.
.
001. Lichtenstein, B.S. (ND Bastyr 1995) states in "Video 2 - Vital Force"(2013)[vsc 2013-12-03]:
.


.

.
[tags: #naturopathicvitalism #homeopathicvitalism #Kent #Lindlahr #Hahnemann #vitalforce #spiritlikelifeforce]
.
"[this is a combination of his audio and the text of the slides he puts up; the title tells us] this 22 minute video explores the concept of vital force in [the] context of homeopathy and naturopathic medicine [...] video two in our homeopathy series [...] Vital Force [...] in this session, I will be discussing the concept of vital force in homeopathy [...] vitalism, vital force, and symptoms [...] what is vitalism? [...] how would you describe the vital force? [...] as we begin this talk on the vital force and disease [...] how do we measure human energy? [...] how do we know? [...] I'd like to read the 9th aphorism from Hahnemann [...which talks of vital force as] 'the spirit-like life force (autocracy [...or] dynamism that animates the material body' [...] this life force, when it is working, it keeps everything in check [...] however, in aphorism 11, Hahnemann tells us [...illness is the derangement of] 'this spiritual, self-acting (automatic) vital force' [...] when we fall ill [...] it is the vital force that is deranged [...] what is the vital force? [...] that which animates life [...] when we have it we're alive, when we don't have it we're not alive [...] we cannot see the vital force, we cannot see gravity [...stuff we cannot] see but believe to exist [...] the homeopath Kent [..] discussed the qualities of the vital force [...] it is intelligent [...] it knows [...] the vital force holds sway over the operations of the mind and body [...] it is the vital force that adapts to the environment [...] the state of the vital force [...] how do we know it is present? [...] how do we know when the vital force is disturbed in any way? [...] we know the vital force is disturbed by the symptoms created.  Symptoms are the form that the disturbed vital force takes.  The real disease is the disturbance that disrupts the vital force [...] more energy will be created and hence more disease [...] the disturbance on the vital force [...] the vital force's reaction [...] the ability of the vital force to react [...] naturopathic model of healing [...includes at its center] disturbance of the vital force [...footnoted to NDs] Zeff [...] Snider [...and] Myers [...] we know a disturbance in the vital force occurs because we see a total symptom picture [...] the vital force might not be susceptible [...] each person whose vital force will be disturbed [...and we're told per Kent that infectious bacteria are] outcomes of the disease [...] the cause is much more subtle than anything that can be shown by microscope [...] the exciting cause is simply that which disturbs the vital force [...] the vital force responds only to factors which have some similarity or resonance to its own nature [...] the vital force responded to those factors which had similarity to its own nature [...] if the person's vital force resonates with the disturbance [...] recall the writings of Lindlahr, from first year, in Theory and Practice [...] the exciting cause can lead to disturbance in the vital force [...] in talking about the vital force [...] vitalism, vital force [...] from this conversation and the reading, how would you define vitalism?"


Note: this is, overall, a prescientific supernaturalization of physiology by way of vitalism-animism-spiritism. This sounds like a lecture meant for the Bastyr clinic's ND students in training.  And now, EVEN NOW, Bastyr states that naturopathy is "science based natural medicine."  Ah, that absurdity of science subset nonscience.  Such intellectual rigor!

002. the New York Academy of Sciences:

002.a. once upon a time, the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr was alive, and NYAS had an excerpt up regarding biology and vitalism!  Once upon a time in 2004, there was the web page "The Autonomy of Biology: How the Complexity of Living Systems Makes Biology Unique" (a 2007 web archive page) which stated:

“[per Mayr, E., there's] the refutation of certain erroneous basic assumptions [as regards the scientific understanding of life…] under this heading, I deal with the support for certain basic ontological principles that later were shown to be erroneous. Biology could not be recognized as a science of the same rank as physics as long as most biologists accepted certain basic explanatory principles not supported by the laws of the physical sciences and eventually found to be invalid. The two major principles here involved are vitalism and a belief in cosmic teleology. As soon as it had been demonstrated that these two principles are invalid and, more broadly, that none of the phenomena of the living world is in conflict with the natural laws of the physicalists, there was no longer any reason for not recognizing biology as a legitimate autonomous science equivalent to physics […as regards the discarded, i.e.] vitalism. The nature of life, the property of being living, has always been a puzzle for philosophers. Descartes tried to solve it by simply ignoring it [...] but this did not satisfy most naturalists. They were convinced that in a living organism certain forces are active that do not exist in inanimate nature. They concluded that, just as the motion of planets and stars is controlled by an occult, invisible force called gravitation by Newton, the movements and other manifestations of life in organisms are controlled by an invisible force, Lebenskraft or vis vitalis. Those who believed in such a force were called vitalists [...] Henri Bergson (1859-1941) and Hans Driesch (1867-1941) were prominent vitalists in the early 20th century [...] the end of vitalism came when it no longer could find any supporters. Two causes were largely responsible for this: first, the failure of literally thousands of unsuccessful experiments conducted to demonstrate the existence of a Lebenskraft; second, the realization that the new biology, with the methods of genetics and molecular biology, was able to solve all the problems for which scientists traditionally had invoked the Lebenskraft. In other words, the proposal of a Lebenskraft had simply become unnecessary. It would be ahistorical to ridicule vitalism [...] the critical logic of the vitalists was impeccable. But all their efforts to find a scientific answer to the so-called vitalistic phenomena were failures. Generations of vitalists labored in vain to find a scientific explanation for the Lebenskraft until it finally became quite clear that such a force simply does not exist. That was the end of vitalism [...] the discoveries of genetics and paleontology eventually totally discredited cosmic teleology."


Note: wonderful.
Post a Comment