Misrepresentation of Knowledge IS 'The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine' - BCNA 2009, ISBN 9780443073007:

here, a little exercise in contradiction! The British Columbia Naturopathic Association [BCNA] strongly claims naturopathy is a science and incompletely explains naturopathy's central premise [of vitalism], while actual science speaks oppositely about 'what is essentially the naturopathic' [the vitalistic; see 001., below]; I then cite naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise from naturopathy's central textbook [see 002., below] and compare it to scientific consensus [see 002.'s notes, below]:

001. BCNA's Cassie, G. (? ?) states in "The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" [a web address that actually has naturopathy spelled wrong in it!]:

"alternative medicine is the medicine of the 21st century [...] many people have chosen naturopathic doctors (NDs) as their primary health care professional [!!!{professions claim}...] naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [!!!...] the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [...] is threefold: [#1] vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]: the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment. NDs believe in the recuperative power of the organism, given the correct climate for healing [...we're] embracing these tenets, on a science-based platform [!!!...] 'a comprehensive foundation in the biological and biomedical sciences' [!!!...] the same scientific fashion [!!!...] the scientific basis and validity of naturopathic protocols [!!!...] naturopathic journals [...] 'the division between alternative and orthodox medicine is not of a scientific nature'[!!!]."

Note: the HUGE assertion that naturopathy, with its central premise of VMN, is SCIENCE. But, in a nutshell, this is bullshit:

a) the coding VMN, the central premise of naturopathy, is, after all, when you turn that rock over, naturopathy's essential vitalism disguised in naturalistic language;

b) such vitalism is hugely science-ejected;

c) yet, BCNA does not transparently explain that important fact to the public -- e.g., an honest statement might be something like "our central premise is science-ejected but we call it science, which means we're crazy-ignorant whack-a-moles pretending to be scientific medicine professionals" -- which is, minimally, dishonest and therefore professionally unethical.

002. and just to emphasize naturopathy's essential vitalism, remember that the Textbook of Natural Medicine (ISBN 9780443073007; 2006 3rd ed.) states:

"[per homeopath-naturopath Bradley, R. (ND NCNM, DHANP AANP)] the foundations of naturopathic medical philosophy are found in vitalism [!!! p.080...and, he believes, vitalism has] no conflict with the findings of biomedical science [!!! p.081 {see note 01, below -- it has only been kicked out of science!}...and supporting vitalism is, according to Bradley] the problem of entropy. Entropy is the tendency of any closed system to find equilibrium, that is, the state of least organization. In other words, systems tend to run down and become less complex over time. In defiance of this universal rule, life, up until the point of death, consistently creates more complex systems out of simple ones [see note 02., below {this 'entropy strategy' is used by creationists and vitalists to invoke supernaturalisms such as vitalism & biblical literalism -- and remember, vitalism is best explained as a 'purposeful life spirit bioagency' belief -- by falsely claiming life defies the 'laws of nature' and is therefore supernatural]."

Note 01: for naturopathy, there is obviously no difference between what is science and what is nonscience! That which is nonscience -- like the vitalistic and spiritistic supernatural -- and that which is science are all labeled science, which is an egregious misrepresentation. Yet, at an actual science organization site, the National Center For Science Education [NCSE], we find this pronouncement excluding vitalism from science [and oh, what company vitalism keeps on the trash heap of discarded ideas!] in "Scientific Integrity":

"nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom." This, contrary to Bradley's assertion, is quite a conflict, because it is an exclusion.

Note 02: and NCSE has this to say about the falsehood that life defies 'entropy' in "Creationism and the Laws of Thermodynamics":

"as long as the evolution of life on earth took longer than 10.7 or 11.8 days, the First and Second Laws [entropy is within the 2nd] of Thermodynamics are not violated, respectively."