001. the AANP states in "Advocacy: Legislative Action Center":
"[a request] be a naturopathic advocate [...{an order?!?!}] NDs, ask your legislators to support health care reform that includes patient-centered health and wellness services [PCHWS]."
Note: so, the claim is that naturopathy is PCHWS. This is rather opaque: something lies underneath it all, which, as usual, they are not revealing on this web page.
naturopathic.org currently states that naturo. is a "science"; and specifically is founded upon "scientific evidence [...supporting] the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [...per] let nature heal [...per] a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing [...per] self-healing".
Now, rationally speaking, the body does have healing mechanisms and THIS IS NOT A BELIEF, it is a fact. But, naturopathy uses this fact to then code their article of faith / belief nonparsimony [subtextually]: that healing isn't biological, but instead is -- as a scientific fact / after scientific scrutiny -- due to a 'purposeful life spirit' [PLS] entity / "life force" / "vis medicatrix naturae" [VMN] occupying the material body.
Claiming belief=fact and fact=belief -- epistemic conflation, overall -- is the hallmark of naturopathic 'knowledge-type' absurdity.
In no sense is their "let nature heal" coding of their PLS-VMN belief scientifically supported: look analytically, and you will see that this is their vitalism belief, claimed as science fact, when in fact science-ejected.
So, it appears that PCHWS is now a stand-in to legislators for all of this naturo. NONSENSE.
"[quoting Snider, P. (ND Bastyr 1982) who OVERSAW the canonization of naturopathy's beliefs per 'Rippling River'] 'we believe in the vital force which has inherent organization, is intelligent and intelligible . . . our way is to research the mystery and beauty of the life force, in which we have faith ' -- American Association of Naturopathic Physicians Convention; Townsend Letter for Doctors [...] the faith of naturopaths [...] belief in the life force [...] reliance on weird metaphysical forces [...] that very philosophy effectively destroys naturopathy's pretensions of being scientific [...] the anti-scientific philosophy of naturopathy [...] a philosophy known as vitalism, which posits the existence of 'vital forces,' mysterious and mystical forces possessed by all living organisms [...] no scientific methodologies will be forthcoming because the life force is not a scientific concept. It's an article of faith, and one that appeals to many people precisely because it speaks to the existence of something greater than that which science can investigate. And that means that naturopathy can never become scientific, unless it abandons the very belief that makes it so popular [...] scientific developments [...] spelled the end of vitalism [...] science consigned vitalism to the dustbin [...] naturopathy is not science".
Note: OH SNAP! I'm so JEALOUS I didn't write that article!
002. but, lets look at naturopathy's other descriptors, and where they stand 'upon the preponderance':
naturopathic.org currently states that naturo. is a "science"; and specifically is founded upon "scientific evidence [...supporting] the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [...per] let nature heal [...per] a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing [...per] self-healing".
Now, rationally speaking, the body does have healing mechanisms and THIS IS NOT A BELIEF, it is a fact. But, naturopathy uses this fact to then code their article of faith / belief nonparsimony [subtextually]: that healing isn't biological, but instead is -- as a scientific fact / after scientific scrutiny -- due to a 'purposeful life spirit' [PLS] entity / "life force" / "vis medicatrix naturae" [VMN] occupying the material body.
Claiming belief=fact and fact=belief -- epistemic conflation, overall -- is the hallmark of naturopathic 'knowledge-type' absurdity.
In no sense is their "let nature heal" coding of their PLS-VMN belief scientifically supported: look analytically, and you will see that this is their vitalism belief, claimed as science fact, when in fact science-ejected.
So, it appears that PCHWS is now a stand-in to legislators for all of this naturo. NONSENSE.
003. naturopathy's PLS-VMN belief as 'truly faithyness':
"Naturopathy's Main Article of Faith Cannot Be Validated : Reliance on Vital Forces Leaves Its Practices Based on Beliefs Without Scientific Backing" {2009-03-07}:the Vancouver Sun's McKnight, P. (? ?) states in
"[quoting Snider, P. (ND Bastyr 1982) who OVERSAW the canonization of naturopathy's beliefs per 'Rippling River'] 'we believe in the vital force which has inherent organization, is intelligent and intelligible . . . our way is to research the mystery and beauty of the life force, in which we have faith ' -- American Association of Naturopathic Physicians Convention; Townsend Letter for Doctors [...] the faith of naturopaths [...] belief in the life force [...] reliance on weird metaphysical forces [...] that very philosophy effectively destroys naturopathy's pretensions of being scientific [...] the anti-scientific philosophy of naturopathy [...] a philosophy known as vitalism, which posits the existence of 'vital forces,' mysterious and mystical forces possessed by all living organisms [...] no scientific methodologies will be forthcoming because the life force is not a scientific concept. It's an article of faith, and one that appeals to many people precisely because it speaks to the existence of something greater than that which science can investigate. And that means that naturopathy can never become scientific, unless it abandons the very belief that makes it so popular [...] scientific developments [...] spelled the end of vitalism [...] science consigned vitalism to the dustbin [...] naturopathy is not science".
Note: OH SNAP! I'm so JEALOUS I didn't write that article!
004. "be a naturopathic advocate?" No thanks.
How is such deception [per note for 001., above] remotely centered around a patient's health and wellness?
How is this reform? It's not progressive: it's regressive and ethically unacceptable.
Naturopathy is a self-serving, sectarian ideology- / belief-system- centered, 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience' that is constantly recoding its fundamental science-ejected / science-unsupported premises.
That coding habit -- instead of transparency -- is their essential deception.
How is this reform? It's not progressive: it's regressive and ethically unacceptable.
Naturopathy is a self-serving, sectarian ideology- / belief-system- centered, 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience' that is constantly recoding its fundamental science-ejected / science-unsupported premises.
That coding habit -- instead of transparency -- is their essential deception.
No comments:
Post a Comment