Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Fact: The 2011 K-12 National Science Standards Trash / Bury Naturopathy's Central Vitalistic Premise

here, I cite from the National Research Council of the National Academies regarding the newly revised 2011 national science framework for K-12 [see 001.a. and 001.b., below]; and then, particular to naturopathy's central premise [vitalism], I point out that these standards label that premise TRULY science-ejected [see 001.b., below]:

001. the National Research Council of the National Academies writes:

001.a. in the press release “Report Offers New Framework to Guide K-12 Science Education, Calls for Shift in the Way Science is Taught in the U.S.” (2011-07-19):

“[this] report […] sponsored by Carnegie Corporation of New York […and] released today by the National Research Council […] the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering […was] developed by an 18-member committee that included experts in education and scientists from many disciplines […it] presents a new framework for K-12 science education that identifies the key scientific ideas and practices all students should learn by the end of high school […] the new framework is designed to help students gradually deepen their knowledge of core ideas in four disciplinary areas over multiple years of school, rather than acquire shallow knowledge of many topics […] it strongly emphasizes the practices of science – helping students learn to plan and carry out investigations, for example, and to engage in argumentation from evidence […] to ensure that by the end of 12th grade, all students have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science, the capacity to discuss and think critically about science-related issues, and the skills to pursue careers in science or engineering."

Note: sounds very progressive.

001.b. in "A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas" [available for free download]:

"science is replete with ideas that once seemed promising but have not withstood the test of time, such as the concept of the 'ether' or the vis vitalis (the 'vital force' of life) [that's vitalism, which is central to naturopathy; 3-22]."

Note: oh snap!  Meanwhile, naturopathy maintains -- regressively and HUGELY unscientifically -- that it is a scientific fact that such a 'vital force' is responsible for physiological activity and particularly, for disease and health.  This is why, but not totally why: naturopathic licensure results in licensed falsehood, and the preparation for such is a falsely labeled education.
Post a Comment