M.T. Murray (ND Bastyr 1985) on Science & HPN - 'If We're Going to Be Exact...' (1996; ISBN 0761504109):

a short exploration of the "healing power of nature" science-ejected, coded vitalistic premise of naturopathy -- as opaquely expressed by Murray in 1996 -- of course, absurdly claimed to be firmly scientifically established and to have growing scientific support:

001. in the book "Encyclopedia of Nutritional Supplements" (1996; ISBN 0761504109), Michael T. Murray (ND Bastyr 1985) writes about science and the "healing power of nature:"

001.a. "science is paving the way for the medicine of the future - a medicine that recognizes the healing power of nature [HPN is naturopathy's fundamental premise; see 001.b.]. What exactly is science? [...] the term science refers to 'possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.' Scientific knowledge is based upon the scientific method, meaning that the understanding is based on the collection of data through observation and experiment [...] we use science to explain the nature of the human body and the environment. Breakthrough developments in many areas of science are occurring at an incredible pace, particularly in areas of medicine. [Historically,] what was once considered scientific medicine is often discarded when a deeper understanding is achieved. For example, in the 1800s scientific medicine involved bloodletting and the administration of very toxic substances [{this is not a bad definition of science} p.005]."

Note: the claim is that science is increasingly supporting naturopathy's "healing power of nature."

001.b. "[naturopathy is based upon] five time-tested principles [...first, foremost] the healing power of nature. The body has considerable power to heal itself. It is the role of the physician or healer to facilitate and enhance this process [p.006]."

Alert, since we're being "exact:" has the HPN been "exactly" / transparently defined here? My expertise tells me NO, NOT AT ALL -- because I know, exactly, what the healing power of nature contextually actually means for naturopathy -- it is the article of faith / belief known as vitalism, a concept profoundly science-ejected and lacking a shred of evidence to support its existence. It is USUAL for NDs / NMDs not to communicate this actuality. So the claim, that science is increasingly supporting naturopathy's "healing power of nature," plainly, is deceptive naturopathic bullshit, when things are looked at "exactly" -- transparently, historically.

{If you have any doubt about naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalistic belief premise, Bastyr University states here, in a 2004 web page with a title containing the label "science," of course, per "Ayurveda: [is] The Science of Life:" "Christy Lee-Engel, ND [is] assistant dean of the university’s naturopathic medicine department [...and who said] 'underlying naturopathic and ayurvedic medicines is a faith in the healing power of nature [...] as you find with traditional Chinese medicine [qi], they emphasize living a healthy lifestyle by creating conditions in which the vital life force can do what it’s designed to do' [...] ayurveda was designed to maintain and establish the balance of life forces.” And, of course, Bastyr calls all this "science-based natural medicine" [ISYN!]}.

002. yet, Dr. Murray tells us:

002.a. "most natural healing therapies are based upon scientific investigation [!!!...] this increased understanding is a result of more strict scientific investigation [!!!...] the scientific investigation has not only validated the natural approach but [!!! etc....] we are seeing evidence of an increased acceptance of these [naturopathic] principles [e.g. vitalism!!!] and the practice of natural medicine, an acceptance that is a direct result of increased scientific investigation [!!!]. Scientists are validating the time-tested principles of naturopathic [p.006] medicine [!!!] and other natural therapies. This validation of natural medicine is not entirely surprising [!!!]. After all, if these principles and techniques are based upon truth, they should stand up to strict scientific scrutiny [p.007]."

Note: so, naturopathy labels the PROFOUNDLY science ejected, 'increasingly firmly science-based.' Their central concept and claim -- vitalism -- fell apart due to the march of science -- "a deeper understanding" was achieved -- yet, vitalism is falsely labeled 'firmly scientific' -- in this day and age. Meanwhile, naturopathy's 4th principle, per this book, is "the physician is a teacher. A physician should be foremost a teacher, educating [and] empowering" [p.006].

Let's correct that, to reflect what actually occurs: 'miseducating, deceiving' -- 'the physician is just plain wrong.'

for Dr. Murray's biography, click here, where you can be told: "he is a graduate, faculty member, and serves on the Board of Trustees of Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington."