here, I cite from the rather recent Pennsylvania Association of Naturopathic Physicans [PANP] web pages regarding naturopathy's supposed science credentials [see 001., below]; and then I show how coded their essential vitalism is [see 002., below]:
001. PANP writes in:
001.a. "Naturopathic Principles" [vsc 2010-07-26]:
"naturopathic medicine is a [...] science [...] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances [...] naturopathic doctors [...] diverse techniques include [...] scientific and empirical methods."
Note: science, science, science. Explicitly, PANP states that when current modern scientific rigors are visited upon naturopathy's ideas, the ideas survive legitimate scientific scrutiny.
001.b. "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-07-26]:
"naturopathic medicine is a form of health care that blends old, proven remedies with new scientific knowledge and advancements [...] scientific research has shown that many medical conditions can be treated as effectively with food and nutritional supplements [...] a resurgence of scientific research in Europe and Asia is demonstrating that some plant substances are superior to synthetic drugs in clinical conditions."
Note: science, science, science. Of course, there's huge illogic in stating that naturopathy survives rigorous scientific scrutiny and then stating that naturopathy is a blend of science and ________. The 'old and proven' could very well not be scientifically supported and instead by scientifically refuted: take naturopathy's homeopathy for instance. It is old, and it came about through 'provings.' And it is bunk.
001.c. "Naturopathic Education" [vsc 2010-07-25]:
"NDs are trained in medical sciences [...] the seven naturopathic medical schools are as follows [...#7] National University of Health Sciences."
Note: when your science does not discriminate between what is science and what is not science, I don't think you were trained in all that much of any science. Now, NUHS claims obviously by its name that its contents are science: so why is naturopathy within it?
002. of course, I can't find a transparent / honest description of naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalistic context on the site at all:
002.a. instead, we get coding / opacity in PANP's "Naturopathic Principles" [vsc 2010-07-26]:
"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice [...] 1) the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). The healing power of nature is the inherent self-organizing and healing process of living systems which establishes, maintains and restores health. Naturopathic medicine recognizes this healing process to be ordered and intelligent. It is the naturopathic doctor's role to support, facilitate and augment this process by identifying and removing obstacles to health and recovery, and by supporting the creation of a healthy internal and external environment [...] 3) first do no harm (primum non nocere) [...] naturopathic doctors respect and work with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling, for if this self-healing process is not respected the patient may be harmed."
Note: no "life force" or "vital force" on this page. Just the staunch claim that these ideas survive scientific scrutiny. Supernatural spiritism is on there twice, though. Well, coded or not, vitalism and supernaturalism do not survive scientific scrutiny. To get the full monty, you have to go to a more established AANP State organization, like, say, Oregon. There, you will get the transparent vitalism of naturopathy, plus the PANP-like false claim that such survives scientific scrutiny.
002.b. due to what's missing / opaque at PANP, I'll provide some balance:
naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise, falsely labeled science and coded usually -- as is the case with PANP -- is truly science-ejected and sectarian / cultic. Being that naturopathy does not distinguish a science-supported fact from a figmentatious article of faith, you may place yourself at considerable risk in visiting an ND as naturopathic mindsets and methods are quite -- absurd.