Monday, April 11, 2011

A Big Upcoming Naturocrit Anniversary: 5 Years of TNM Criticism at This 2011-05-20

here, I reiterate my objections to the 'essentially naturopathic' in a partial review at that I did in 2006 as reflected in ND Murray and Pizzorno's "Textbook of Natural Medicine" 3rd edition [see 001., below]; then, I talk about the things I would now change in that review [see 002., below]:

001. I wrote, in "This is scientific medicine?" [vsc 2011-04-11]:

"I recently viewed the new chapter concerning 'naturopathic philosophy' [in the 3rd edition, 2005] within this text at the University of Bridgeport's library, as there's a naturopathic school there that I attended. The chapter discusses the premises of 'the naturopathic.' Do you really want to be treated by a physician who conflates (blends) supernatural, nonscientific, scientifically discarded, idealistic, metaphysical, religious and scientific information -- and presents the whole thing as [supposedly] scientific? [a misrepresentation: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District anyone?]. Check out "The Epistemic Conflation of a School of Thought Claiming to be Scientific" and "Why I Dropped Out of Naturopathy School" - online per me, Rob Cullen. [THIS is future healthcare? I disagree, these prophets are truly 'facing backward']. I'm highly ethically disturbed by this text and naturopathy, still. I'll just make one point about this book's contention that complexity, self-regulation, and evolution indicate that life defies the laws of natural science {and is therefore supernatural} -- particularly the second law of thermodynamics, per physics, in terms of life as supposedly being antientropic as indicated by life's evolving complexity [p.081-082] -- therefore justifying, particularly, vitalism and its handmaiden teleology-finalism. [Beliefs essential to 'the naturopathic'; explanations no longer within science at all; rejected-knowledge in terms of the scientific].[Yes, evolution! Even though evolution is actually the culmination of 'methodological naturalism,' which is HOW science approaches phenomena, that is: SCIENCE DOES NOT INVOKE THE SUPERNATURAL {which includes ideas like naturopathy's vitalism, spiritism and kind}, science determines its contents based upon EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, and exceptionally LEAN explanatory approaches {per parsimony: as in 'do not multiply entities needlessly'; that is, if not ascribed by the evidence, IT ISN'T A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION}]. Ah, HUGE problem. The second law deals with closed systems and life's context is within an open system, in terms of thermodynamics. [For the compliance of the 'living' with thermodynamic law, see Atwater & Rosa's work in 1897 which specifically speaks in terms of the first law {the Kinesiology Dept. of Rice University has a nice web page on biological thermodynamics}; and see 'Biological Thermodynamics' ISBN 0521795494 {p.321 specifically speaks in terms of the second law}]. UB says NDs practice "scientific medicine" and naturopathy is "health science." Hmmm, what kind of [supposed] science text gets something so simple WRONG? Naturopathy is a 'self-labeled science-based' area that won't let go of what has not been considered scientific [the supernatural, the metaphysical, the idealistic, the scientifically-refuted and -discarded -- and kind; i.e., the tenets of their doctrines] for several decades PLUS. This text reflects naturopathic 'epistemic mislabeling nonsense' [e.g. naturopathy's vitalism ("life force"), spiritism ("personal spiritual development; body, mind, spirit"), autoentheism ("god-power within"), teleology-finalism ('life force' as "intelligent, purposeful, goal-directed") and 'whatever else idealism'/ woo-woo AREN'T science-based (or even empirical phenomena, as in therefore 'not scienceable') -- but are falsely labeled as scientific by naturopathy anyway]. In reality, minimally, a mandatory, manipulatable, spiritual, 'underlying' {metaphysical, supernatural, idealistic and what-not} 'life force' {of many aliases} immediately responsible for states of health and disease is INSTEAD AN ARTICLE OF FAITH {aka a 'sectarian medicine' belief set}. Hmmm: "the most thoroughly researched and carefully referenced text on natural medicine has been revised to include the most up-to-date information...." It has been a couple of months since I read that chapter, and I'm still, honestly, LAUGHING OUT LOUD. Naturopathy is, essentially, a 'supernatural science' (an oxymoron; particularly, vital-force-spirit, spiritism, autoentheism, and teleology-finalism as "science-based" are arrived at through a radical unlimiting of the boundaries of 'the scientific'); while evidence from science doesn't support the supernatural / theistic, the metaphysical, or the idealistic; and vitalism and spiritism, in terms of physiological agency, are refuted biological hypotheses. -rc."

Note: I've posted this early because I may forget come May.  I just love all the believers / supporters ad hominems.  Perhaps in May I'll post directly about them. True skepticism involves disassembling their evasive and attacking responses.  Here's another chapter sample from TNM.  Of course, the new textbook should be a hoot as well, sponsored by big-supplement / big-empty remedy. By the way, second from the right is ND Sensenig, whom I had as a teacher in naturopathy school, and, who informed me that the body is run by a vital force / god-power-within all the while the ND program was within a supposed "health sciences division" at a school supposedly "nonsectarian".  It is from that experience at UB in 1998 that I coined the label autoentheism to describe that belief.

002. what would I change:

Post a Comment