here, I contrast labels concerning homeopathy. There's is the skeptical, science-minded person who regards homeopathy as pseudoscience [see 001., below] and there's the credulous, sectarian, science and nonscience conflating pseudoprofession [naturopathy] that regards pseudoscience as science [see 002., below]:
001. Andy Lewis writes on his Quackometer blog in "Can Homeopathy Cure Mastitis in Cows?"(2010-09-12):
"a new study has been published in The Journal of Dairy Research looking at if you can use homeopathy to treat mastitis in cattle. The paper fails to demonstrate that you can. And as such, that is not a surprise. These cows will have been given water drops as if it is medicine: homeopathy is a superstitious hang-over from 18th Century ways of thinking about health. Of course it does not work. What is surprising is that the homeopathic world is again leaping on this negative study as if it is proof of the positive benefits of homeopathic pseudoscience [...] this paper will be added to the large pile of junk science that is used to promote the nonsense of ultra-dilutions [...] this is how homeopathy continues. Weak or non–existent evidence is trumpeted as success."
Note: hear, hear.
002. meanwhile, in naturopathyland, naturopathy's licensure test-administration wing, the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners, claims in "About NPLEX" [vsc 2010-09-12]:
"the first NABNE administration of the Part I - Basic Science Examinations was in January 2000, and the first NABNE administration of the Part II - Clinical Science Examinations was in August 2000 [...] the Core Clinical Science Examination now required by every state and province that regulates the practice of naturopathic medicine [i.e., U.S. and Canada]. The Core Clinical Science Examination is a case-based examination that covers the following topics [...including] homeopathy."
Note: so, there we have quite opposite labels upon what truly is archaic nonsense [pseudoscience, science]. I find naturopathy's labels of 'science, science, science' to be quite nonsensical: after all, naturopathy, by its own definition, does not make a distinction concerning what is within and what is exterior-to science, and yet naturopathy is quite happy to falsely label that thought-muddle science and trade upon the misrepresentation.
