here, I cite from a blog post of Ontario's ND Long who labels naturopathy science and professional, and claims critics are merely uninformed and thoughtless [see 001., below]; then I cite from the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctor's [CAND] publication that defines naturopathy [see 002., below]; I'll also cite from AANMC schools in 003. and the web pages of ND Long and partner ND McKeown in 004.:
001. Long, M. (ND BINM 2010) states in "What Is[n't] Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2011-03-16; my comments are in bold]:
Note: the title of the post says a lot about naturopathy's M.O. Naturopathy wants to have it both ways, be what it is and what it isn't: pose itself as distinct, transparent, objective and be held to high scientific standards [what it isn't / epistemically demarcated], and yet remain undefined, vague, opaque and relative / subjective to maintain its contents [what it is / epistemically conflated]. That knowledge-type duality-posed-as-unity is the slime marinade that naturopathy wallows in.
"in actuality, we are rooted in science, requiring bachelor of science degrees as a prerequisite for entry in to naturopathic doctor programs [...we] use the latest natural evidence-based medicine with our patients. Natural medicine is not stagnant, grasping on the whim of historical findings -- just like all branches of medicine, trusted therapies of old are refined continually as the evidence evolves -- out with the old, in with the new [...and speaks of the] available evidence [...] the actual evidence [...about] the profession [...] real naturopathic doctors [...of] the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [variety...] we are deeply trained in clinical sciences [...] our education is not a joke [...I] only use interventions strongly supported by the peer reviewed evidence [...] most of naturopathic medicine is of sound reasoning [...]";
science, evidence, science, evidence, science, reasoning. Hmmmm. In actuality, such is NOT rooted in science or even what's rational, but I'll get back to the central Canadian naturopathy textbook of "real" naturopathy [in 002., below]. There's talk of evidence and being progressive but that CAND textbook -- which summarizes naturopathic thought -- indicates naturopathy is quite preponderantly OTHERWISE, really. As this blog states, 'in their own words': science is a garnish for a bunch of science-ejected and science-unsupported sectarian beliefs and methods unsoundly / falsely labeled science-based objective fact. That is the ACTUAL evidence: the false / unsound position of labeling as science that which HUGELY is not. This precludes naturopathy from using the label "profession" because professions are not based on falsehood and manipulative opacity.
"prereflective judgment is the most rudimentary type of thinking where a person merely assumes, as they are either unable to differentiate fact from belief [...] reflective judgment is considered the most advanced form of rational thinking [...where] opinions are critical assessments, formulated by weighing all available evidence before reaching a conclusion [...]";
I prereflectively TRUSTED the naturopathy apparatus to be telling the truth when I financially engaged with the AANMC school I attended as a career path. The AANP Alliance had termed naturopathy "science based" and "not a belief system". Later, with MORE EVIDENCE accumulating as I went through ND school, I found that the area is at its core -- upon a DECADE plus of REFLECTION -- nonsense. I prereflectively assumed, I'll admit, that a University that was fully regionally accredited and State sanctioned wouldn't be based on nonsense and that '.gov' type oversight wouldn't be either. Now, reflectively, I can parse naturopathy's deceptive M.O. using ALL the evidence I've acquired over more than 15 years of study of naturopathy. The "fact from belief" mention has my irony meter destroyed: it is precisely naturopathy's labeling of belief [no science] as fact [scientific] that IS its knowledge-type muddle. As a proponent of "science based medicine" and not merely "evidence based medicine", I do appreciate the ethos of looking at "all available evidence." I have, particularly plausibility. I know more than most NDs / NMDs about naturopathy, actually, and naturopathy's relation to science and the science-ejected.
"we cannot easily define naturopathic medicine based on what it is [...] I am going to define it based on what it isn’t [...] we are not witch doctors, quacks, hippies, or miracle curers. We do not have voodoo dolls, cauldrons, or potions [...]";
you will have to do better than that, if you are going to use the labels "science" and "profession"! Part of the purpose of this blog is to do better than that. Here's an example: when I was in ND school, an ND instructor diagnosed patients with a pendulum and applied kinesiology, and treated people with homeopathy, UNDA numbers, and acupuncture. Sounds a lot like what's done in the later part of the citation directly above. So, therein I just described part of what naturopathy IS. Since ND Long doesn't have the ability [or perhaps desire] to pin-down 'the essentially naturopathic', I will, in part, below.
002. CAND's textbook (ISBN 9781552787786 2009, by ND Lloyd):
I highly recommend this book as a 'key' to the contents of naturopathy, from the Canadian side. You can buy it directly from CAND for not very much money. It's also at Amazon. Here's some of it:
"vitalism and holism represents the philosophy of naturopathic medicine [p.029...] the aim of naturopathic physicians is to treat the patient, not the disease, by directing the vital force and encouraging it with naturopathic therapeutics to stimulate the body’s own defenses [p.030...] modern day science recognizes that the concepts of vitalism and holism are as integral to understanding health and disease as the concepts of reductionism and mechanism. The true picture, and hence the answer to health promotion and disease prevention, lies in the blending of all the knowledge."
Note: so, there you go. Vitalism, which is hugely science-ejected actually, claimed as science. And science, which is a knowledge-type demarcation, blended with the nonscientific and then falsely labeled science -- overall a knowledge-type conflation, the 'we must blend knowledge' yet claim that as unblended science naturopathic M.O. When is knowledge demarcation equated with knowledge conflation -- naturopathy. When is science nonscience -- naturopathy. So, I don't see the accuracy of ND Long's claim of being "rooted in science", "out with the old", "rational thinking", "all available evidence", and "profession".
03. AANMC schools:
ah, the mother ship. Wherein the hugely science-exterior vitalistic and supernatural is claimed to survive scientific scrutiny. Blogged this so often it's mundane.
003.b. BINM, ND Long's alma mater:
on the other hand, is cryptic / opaque / manipulative / incomplete about the essentially naturopathic. Their definition page of naturopathy, "Naturopathic Medical Training" [vsc 2011-03-16] states:
"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care profession founded on the time honored belief in vis medicatrix naturae, 'the healing power of nature' [...] the body's inherent healing abilities [...] it is a holistic [coded vitalism, supernaturalism and kind and meaningless vagarity...] the following is a list of treatments commonly provided or prescribed by naturopathic physicians [...] homeopathy: the use of minute amounts of natural substances to stimulate the body's self-healing abilities [coded vitalism]."
Note: oh, how opaque. I wish I could be told the full picture: that naturopathy is based on vitalism and kind, and that vitalism and kind is science-ejected AND naturopathy falsely labels the science-exterior science and trades on that irrationality. But, that's asking too much! So, the supposedly rooted-in-science cannot do what science must do always: be transparent, use only that which is based upon evidence, not include the science-exterior and science-ejected [like vitalism and kind in all its guises] and such science-ejected bunk as homeopathy.
004. ND Long and McKeown, K. (ND BINM)'s practice [linkedin.com says they are co-owners of the practice]:
004.a. describe naturopathy in "Optimum Integrative Philosophy" [vsc 2011-03-16]:
"at Optimum Integrative we [...use] the latest in evidence-based medicine."
Note: so you'd think the context of naturopathy is scientific and evidence-based as a FOUNDATION or ROOT.
004.b. in "Naturopathic Philosophy" [vsc 2011-03-16]:
"the principles of naturopathic medicine are the foundation for naturopathic practice [...including #2] vis mediatrix [sp., 'medicatrix'] naturae - the healing power of nature [...] naturopathic doctors are compelled to act morally, ethically, and professionally in accordance with the Naturopathic Physicians Oath: I dedicate myself to the service of humanity as a practitioner of the art and science of naturopathic medicine [...] I will honor the principles of naturopathic medicine [...including] to cooperate with the healing powers of nature [...and] to heal the whole person [...] I pledge to remain true to this oath."
Note: ah, the foundation that dare not speak its vitalistic science-ejected context clearly and instead falsely labels it science. That is the ROOT / foundation of naturopathy: an irrational knowledge-type muddle. How can you engage in a professional relationship with such opacity / falseness / irrationality? Naturopathy's supposed 'oath-bound' ethical posture is hilarious, in that light: by oath, I'd argue, they are committed to the context of the science-ejected vitalistic, supernatural and kind, and then by that oath's example / mode also to a mannerism of manipulative opacity that doesn't transparently state 'the essentially naturopathic is the science-ejected falsely and irrationally claimed as science'.
and that is my reflective judgment: naturopathy is QUITE an absurdity. This is from someone STEEPED: who went to an AANMC school for four years, and has continually studied this junk thought.