Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Homeopathy in Times Higher Education 2013 and the Naturopathillogical

here, I cite from and comment upon recent reporting in the UK regarding science and homeopathy [see 001., below]; then, speaking of homeopathy and higher education, I illustrate 'North American higher education homeopathy false labeling' [see 002., below]:

001. timeshighereducation.co.uk states in "MP Triggers Homeopathy Dispute at Science Committee" (2013-03-12; my comments are in unquoted bold):

"[as reported by Paul Jump] addressing the Commons Science and Technology Committee [...] Sir John Beddington [...] the government’s outgoing chief scientific advisor [...] rejected a suggestion by [committee member!] Conservative MP David Tredinnick [that Wiki article points out that DT supports medical astrology, no lie!...and] prominent supporter of homeopathy [...] that, given its 'widespread use' around the world, more scientific 'effort' should be expended on investigating how homeopathy works [...stating] there is no case for further scientific investigation into the 'manifestly nonsensical' mechanism by which homeopathy is supposed to work [...that homeopathy is] 'manifestly nonsensical in terms of the underlying science' [...and does] not merit further investigation [...]";

hear, hear.  Since homeopathy is known NOT to work, there is NO mechanism to investigate.  So many people CAN be wrong.  Scientist versus politician, interesting.  By the way, the big-heavy-lifting was done in 2009 in the UK.

"Sir John [...] suggested that homeopathy supporters who believed their rejection of common scientific opinion would ultimately be proved right had, like climate change skeptics [aka DENIERS], fallen for the 'Galileo fallacy' [...]";

reminds me of one of my favorite Carl Sagan quotes, to paraphrase, 'sure they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.'

002 meanwhile, in naturopathyland, homeopathy is QUITE falsely labeled a clinical science on the naturopathy board exam [see its page 6]:

there [page 2], of course, we are assured that naturopathy, as higher education, is accredited:

"an approved naturopathic medical program is a program that has accreditation or pre-accreditation from the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) and offers a minimum four-academic-year, in-residence curriculum in biomedical science and clinical didactic studies, as well as clinical (experiential) training leading to an N.D. degree (U.S.) or diploma (Canada)."  

ah, the APPROVED biomedical science curriculum that leads to homeopathy nonsense.

the root "scien" occurs in that pdf 47 times!   And, of course, there's the AANP telling us that homeopathy is a science, to this day continuing the racket.

and by the way, recently in NDNR, NCNM's PhD President wrote in "Literacy + Numeracy + Health Literacy = the New Hidden Curriculum" (2013-02):

"graduate school 'entrance' competition examinations [much like the NPLEX as a gateway to licensure], despite their being field specific, seek not only content knowledge, but also scan for strong literacy, numeracy, and critical thinking skills."

oh where or where art thou scientific literacy, NPLEX?  While all the while, NCNM's principles page is abjectly illiterate in terms of science, falsely labeling the patently science-ejected as able to survive scientific scrutiny "in fact".

this is the naturoPATHillogical at its finest.
Post a Comment