How Naturopathy's Science Claims Violate Grade 8 Science Standards:

here, I deal with the absurdity of the science claim naturopathy places upon the hugely science-ejected.  First, there is what naturopathy falsely labels as science, and I take this from my alma mater UBCNM [see 001., below]; then, there is 'the preponderant national science standards for grade 8' [see 002., below]; then, I muse on naturopathy's violations of just a small part of these junior high school national science standards [see 003., below]:

001. well, to quote a line from the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, "all this has happened before, and all this will happen again":

the University of Bridgeport labels as science the hugely science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural [vsc 2010-07-26].  This is at the doctoral level and it claims professions-level rigor.

002. the State of New Mexico states in "New Mexico Grade 8 Science Standards" [vsc 2010-07-26]:

"Strand I: Scientific Thinking and Practice.  Standard I: Understand the processes of scientific investigations and use inquiry and scientific ways of observing, experimenting, predicting, and validating to think critically [...] 5-8 Benchmark II: Understand the processes of scientific investigation and how scientific inquiry results in scientific knowledge. 1. Examine alternative explanations for observations. 2. Describe ways in which science differs from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge (e.g., experimentation, logical arguments, skepticism). 3. Know that scientific knowledge is built on questions posed as testable hypotheses, which are tested until the results are accepted by peers."

003. so, where are the violations? 

In my view, regarding UB's claims, NO SCIENCE has been done.  And what is preponderantly science has been ignored.  A bunch of words have been written, instead.  Clearly from the science standards for eighth graders, SCIENCE IS A SPECIFIC KIND OF ACTIVITY and it generates a specific kind of knowledge -- and all that has been ignored.

So, regarding:

"thinking", "practice", "processes", "ways", "observing, experimenting, predicting and validating", and "investigation" -- science is 'a verb';

"inquiry", "critically", "skepticism" -- invoke the need to analyze and not be gullible / credulous;

"alternative explanations", science is never stuck with one dogmatic assertation;

"ways in which science differs from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge", one should know when, for instance, we're dealing with a scientific fact versus an article of faith;

"testable hypotheses", science can only process what is scientifically processable;

"logical arguments" deal of course with careful reasoning.

Where has UBCNM gone wrong [perhaps]:

they have taken away the activity part of science, and instead deemed that it is enough to place -- via a posture of dogmatic authoritarianism -- the label of science onto pages that they then have filled up with whatever they wanted [e.g., "health science" pages which contain the science-ejected vitalistic and science-unsupported supernatural sectarian];

they have dogmatically / sectarianly taken that 'whatever' and not been critical, curious, or skeptical of it [e.g., the vitalistic page states that a "life force" is "in fact"; while it's not even 'in evidence'!];

from that position, they have not looked at alternatives to that dogmatic whatever, by definition because it is absolute / authoritarian / cultic;

they do not acknowledge that there are different kinds of knowledge, instead they epistemically conflate [they blend knowledge type] and they epistemically misrepresent [e.g., they're claiming that what's hugely science-exterior is within science];

they falsely position the supernatural and mystical-nebulous as scientifically processable / testable [e.g., the invisible immaterial thing that is immeasurable is in fact scientifically supported];

and all in all, their claim that science is whatever they write it to be, and that, in sum, science is the same as the science-ejected -- is illogical, absurd, irrational.

But, I've said this for ten years and more.  Yes, eternal recurrence.