001. John Timmer, Matt Ford, Chris Lee, and Jonathan Gitlin write in "Diluting the Scientific Method: Ars Looks at Homeopathy (Again)" (2013-04-13)[originally published 2007; my comments are in unquoted bold]:
"six years ago, the journal Homeopathy ran a special issue [...] and the Ars writers teamed up to tackle the bizarre
distortions of science that it contained [...e.g.] tying things together [...with] unsupported assertions and logical leaps that have no place in science [...]
so in honor of World Homeopathy Week [...] we're going to run an updated version of that story [...] by
scientifically evaluating homeopathy's attempts to sound scientific and
revealing it to be nothing more than 'pseudoscience,' we think it's
possible to learn something about the scientific process and the
reasoning that drives it [...] we discuss why it shouldn't be celebrated [...] by criticizing homeopathy, we hope to illuminate the general distinctions between science and pseudoscience [...to] help provide a broader picture of what makes science distinct from fields that feign scientific legitimacy [...]";
hear, hear. And oh how NOTHING has helped homeopathy's argument since 2007. Well, perhaps Dr. Oz putting such fakers on his show has given them a bump, but no new high-quality science has happened to improve homeopathy's position.
"a subset of the homeopathic community has consistently
demanded that their practice be viewed as both medically sound and
scientific, presumably to obtain the credibility that traditional
medicine receives. As our article reveals, they hope to achieve this
without actually engaging in scientific practices [...]";
I'd argue that naturopathy is such a subset: naturopathy requires homeopathy in its degree procedures, falsely labels homeopathy a science, and falsely labels homeopathy a science on their North American board exam. Here's the US trade consortia stating "homeopathy is a 200-year old medical science." Here's their whackaloon promotion of homeopathy and proof of its fusion to naturopathy education where they tell us "homeopathy’s effectiveness is supported by a large body of research in the medical literature [...] only in naturopathic medical schools do students formally learn homeopathy both in the academic and clinical settings (seeing patients under doctor supervision). All other medical professionals learn homeopathy outside of their official academic and clinical training." If homeopathy were such a well-established science, and so effective, I think it wouldn't be that hard for these now very wealthy naturopathy schools to do a simple high-quality study and win a Nobel. But, they don't actually DO science. And who does science that then shows one is fraudulent?
"homeopaths have demanded that their field be treated as a science, performing clinical studies, proposing mechanisms, and even convincing Elsevier to publish Homeopathy, a peer-reviewed journal [...] the articles in this special edition of Homeopathy display a number of consistent themes: internal inconsistency, a rejection of scientific standards and methods, and established science being applied to inappropriate situations [...and overall] overtly plead[ing] for homeopathy to be held to a non-scientific standard [...]";
sounds familiar. The naturopathy journal NDNR had an article up arguing that science should include the supernatural.
"[here are] many of techniques used in other fields of pseudoscience: ignore settled issues in science [...] misapplication of real science [...] rejection of scientific standards [...] claims of suppression [...] focusing on the fringes."
sounds like naturopathy school to me, which I went to: a pseudoscience field if ever there was one, wherein naturopathy overall is claimed as a "branch of medical science" while containing the patently science-exterior, such as homeopathy, quite falsely claimed as "by far one of the most effective and safest forms of medicine."
