here, I cite from recent White House documents on science [see 001., below]; then, I reiterate naturopathy's claim that it is a branch of "medical science" while essentially hugely-of-the-science-ejected, with examples provided from the National Academies and a Canadian ND [see 002., below]:
001. the White House states:
001.a. in "Scientific Integrity: Fueling Innovation, Building Public Trust" (2010-12-17):
"John P. Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy [...states] President Obama [has] issued a Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity emphasizing the importance of science in guiding Administration decisions and the importance of ensuring that the public trusts the science behind those decisions [...] he highlighted six principles of scientific integrity [...] he asked me, in collaboration with other Federal officials, to craft recommendations for ensuring scientific integrity throughout the executive branch [...this includes] a clear prohibition on political interference in scientific processes and expanded assurances of transparency [...] as the President said at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences last year, 'science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been before.' I am confident that today’s Memorandum will help ensure that science and technology continue to be brought to bear by this Administration with the greatest effectiveness and integrity in the service of all of the national goals the President has so clearly articulated."
Note: so, good science / science-with-integrity is worthy of trust and vital.
001.b. and Holdren specifically states in that "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies" (2010-12-17):
"on March 9, 2009, the President issued a Memorandum articulating six principles central to the preservation and promotion of scientific integrity and assigning to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy the responsibility for ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch’s involvement with scientific and technological processes [...] foundations of scientific integrity [...] scientific and technological information is often a significant contributor to the development of sound policies. Thus it is important that policymakers involve science and technology experts where appropriate and that the scientific and technological information and processes relied upon in policy-making be of the highest integrity. Successful application of science in public policy depends on the integrity of the scientific process both to ensure the validity of the information itself and to engender public trust in Government [...] agencies should develop policies that ensure a culture of scientific integrity. Scientific progress depends upon honest investigation, open discussion, refined understanding, and a firm commitment to evidence [...] adopting appropriate whistleblower protections [...] facilitate the free flow of scientific and technological information [...] establish principles for conveying scientific and technological information to the public [...an] accurate presentation of scientific and technological information."
Note: pretty good stuff. I wholeheartedly agree. It may even lead to smarter decisions, like not going to war over imagined weapons of mass destruction as we stay more grounded in reality.
002. naturopathy's absurdity / irrationalism and nonintegrity:
002.a. recently, I'd posted about the pan-naturopathic claim that goes like this:
Note: science, science, science.
002.b. now, another pan-naturopathic claim:
that naturopathy is based upon vitalism (see my collection here) [this is a figmentation they ofen hide with coded language], which is an amalgam of vitalism, spiritism and teleology, a purposeful life spirit [truly science-ejected] figmentation held responsible for physiology.
002.c. vitalism is hugely science-ejected, and that is a fact so established that it may as well be fossilized. I'll provide one quote towards that fact, from THE scientific organization of organizations, the National Academies:
John Whitfield's "In the Beat of a Heart: Life, Energy, and the Unity of Nature" (ISBN 0309096812; 2006) states:
"the problem with vitalism [...] was the belief that the explanations for biological phenomena could be found in biology. Instead, biologists should go up the chain of explanations, to chemistry and beyond. They had neglected the physical sciences to their detriment. Why invoke vitalism when so many of the forms in the living world can be explained by simple physical principles? The physics of surface tension, Thompson noted, explain why raindrops are spherical, because this shape has the minimal surface area. Likewise, he argued, surface tension could explain the shape of amoeboid cells, or the spread of sticky droplets over a spider’s web. 'Has the biologist,' Thompson asked, 'fully recognized [...] that the physicist may, and must, be his guide and teacher in many matters regarding organic form? [...] in many of the simpler cases the facts are so well explained by surface tension, that it is difficult to find a place for a conflicting, much less an overriding, force.' Vitalism, in short, was unnecessary [so PAST TENSE UNNECESSARY!]."
002.d. in sum, naturopathy has NO SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY:
when 'that which it isn't is the same as that which it is', run -- particularly when that person is claiming ability to diagnose and treat.
Note: why else do you think such nonsense as applied kinesiology would be espoused by Canadian ND Leung, K. (ND CCNM):
"applied kinesiology is a system that evaluates structural, chemical, and mental aspects of health using manual muscle testing alongside conventional diagnostic methods [hmmm, they must compare well!]. The essential premise of applied kinesiology that is not shared by mainstream medical theory [because it is false] is that every organ dysfunction is accompanied by a weakness in a specific corresponding muscle, the viscerosomatic relationship [which is bullshit]."
As regards homeopathy, we're told:
"based on the principle of 'like cures like', homeopathic medicine uses minute amounts of natural substances to stimulate the self-healing abilities of the body [coded vitalism]."
As regards acupuncture, we're told:
"based on balancing the flow of chi (energy) [vitalism] through the meridian pathways, Asian medicine includes the use of acupuncture and Oriental herbs."
His bio. says:
"Dr. Kin is licensed to practice naturopathic medicine in Alberta, and is registered with the Alberta Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...and] is also a member of the Board of Directors of Drugless Therapy - Naturopathy (BDDT-N), in Ontario, and the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia (CNPBC) [...and] a member of the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (CAND) and the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (OncANP)."
And CNPBC states in "Prescriptive Authority for Naturopathic Physicians: Objectives, Rationale and a Framework for Regulation: A proposal for The British Columbia Ministry of Health 22 December 2006":
"demand for naturopathic medical services continues to rise as patients seek valid, science-based alternatives [...] guided by scientific, evidence-based approaches to treatment and intervention [...] 'in common possession of scientific facts' [...] 'a shared scientific foundation'."
Note: fascinating, science-based nonscience. Evidence-based figmentation. Facts that are sectarian phantoms. A scientific-foundation not the basis of anything in science.
Naturopathy is your brain on bone-headedness.