001. Jeff Spross writes in "Three Things Conservatives Wrote This Week That Everyone Should Read" (2014-07-11):
"by now liberals have developed a habit of thinking of themselves as 'pro-science.' But Josiah Neeley, a conservative Catholic and a public policy analyst from Texas, is having none of it. In The Week, Neeley has an article pointing out that licensing laws for doctors currently include 'naturopathic medicine' — Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) actually introduced a legislative resolution to celebrate the branch of medicine in October — and Neeley doesn’t hesitate to needle liberals on that front [...]";
003. the original article, "This is a Perfect Example of Why Democrats Aren't the Party of Science Why Do 'Naturopathic Doctors' Get Feted and Nurses Get Restricted?" (2014-07-11), by Josiah Neeley states:
"this probably passed you by, but last October 7-13 was 'Naturopathic Medicine Week,' a distinction bestowed unanimously by the U.S. Senate recognizing 'the value of naturopathic medicine in providing safe, effective, and affordable health care' [...]";
now, the Senate includes conservatives, but go on...
"this is a baffling move for the so-called party of science [...]";
well, I think it's a rather straw man argument, but go on...
"for the uninitiated, naturopathy, or naturopathic medicine, is a system of medicine based on the healing power of nature. Naturopathy is a holistic system, meaning that naturopathic doctors (N.D.s) or naturopathic medical doctors (N.M.D.s) strive to find the cause of disease by understanding the body, mind, and spirit of the person [...] if that doesn't sound very scientific, naturopaths agree. In one revealing interview, naturopathic oncologist Daniel Rubin states that 'one of the greatest challenges we face [as naturopaths] is the widespread public belief in the scientific method' [...]";
HPN is, of course, naturopathy's science-ejected vitalism, coded. And holistic, as nebulous as natural, includes, like the natural in naturopathy...the supernatural. I agree that ND Rubin reveals something quite cognitively dissonant.
"but while naturopaths eschew the scientific method, they very much want to mimic the trappings of the medical mainstream. To that end they have created their own accredited degree granting schools, their own professional associations, and have sought licensing from the state as a sign of legitimacy [...]";
"as the naturopathy example shows, public health is really not the concern here. If it were, then giving greater scope of practice to naturopaths (who don't provide effective medical care) than to nurses (who do) would make no sense. As with most examples of occupational licensing, the real goal is to increase salaries for those within the guild by restricting competition [...] our hospitals are full of the answer to the physician shortage. We just need to give people the same freedom to choose a good nurse that they already have to choose a bad doctor [...]";
OK, I get your point. But, I'm wondering where science ends for Mr. Neeley. Is evolution science? Is anthropogenic global warming? Do women have the right to decide their own reproductive matters? If naturopathy isn't science, then the same science that determines that determines those other matters. So, here I see the fact that naturopathy is not scientific being used by those on the Right against those on the Left. And it has been noted before that while those of the Left criticize the Right for their nonscientific, ideological stances in certain matters, yes, the Left has its pet pseudosciences!