Thursday, January 30, 2014

The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 004e (Part 5 of 5) - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the fifth part of the fourth episode of The Naturocrit Podcast, "The NYANP: Their 2014 Bill Fabrication and Content History".  I will mainly deal with what modern SCIENCE has to say about 'the essentially naturopathic': the nonscientific status of naturopathy's essential, core or defining vitalistic-supernatural and teleological therapeutic and academic obligations, and naturopathy's homeopathic activities. I will cite from: the Next Generation Science Standards by way of the National Academies Press, archived New York Academy of Sciences web pages, NYU's Alan Sokal, and from a few other academic sources:

 001. the Episode 004e (Part 5 of 5) script and annotations:



Standard Intro.:

Welcome to, as that robot voice says, The Naturocrit Podcast, and thank you for boldly listening. 

What ARE we even talking about?

Well, this podcast series is my take on naturopathic medicine, an area I've been studying for about twenty years, including my time in so-called 'scientific nonsectarian naturopathic medical school'.

My approach is a pairing of scientific skepticism and a deep knowledge of naturopathy's intimate details.
In previous episodes of this series, I established that naturopathy is, essentially, a kind of knowledge blending, misrepresentation, and irrationality.
I have termed naturopathy both 'an epistemic conflation falsely posing itself as an epistemic delineation' and 'the naturopathillogical':


the science-exterior is mixed with what is scientific, then that whole muddle is absurdly claimed to be science as an entire category, while particular sectarian science-ejected oath-obligations and -requirements are coded or camouflaged, therein effectively disguising naturopathy's system of beliefs in public view.

Naturopathy's ultimate achievement is a profound erosion of scientific integrity and freedom of belief packaged in the marketing veneer "natural" and improperly embedded in the academic category "science".

 Episode Synopsis:
In  this Part Five of this five-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 004, titled "The NYANP: Their 2014 Bill Fabrication and Content History", I will mainly deal with what modern SCIENCE has to say about 'the essentially naturopathic':

the nonscientific status of naturopathy's essential, core or defining vitalistic-supernatural and teleological therapeutic and academic obligations,and naturopathy's homeopathic activities.

[I don't have space to cover more of naturopathy's nonsense activities].

I will cite from:

the Next Generation Science Standards by way of the National Academies Press, archived New York Academy of Sciences web pages, NYU's Alan Sokal, and from a few other ACADEMIC sources.

And I must note, to add a sense of drama, that if science can be 'anything' epistemically speaking, if there is no such thing as epistemic distinction, as the naturopaths IN SUM would have us believe, then I don't have an argument at all.
And I am NOT a scientist, to be clear.

And to be clearest, I don't see the credentials ND creating 'scientist status' either though naturopathy claims it is a branch of medical science.

Where's the SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY happening in terms of 'the essentially naturopathic'!

Where is the quality experimentation that then generates the data that then lends support to a theory?

Like a VFSF theory?

Well, truth is, historically speaking, this WAS all tried before.


My argument regarding the actual NONSCIENTIFIC and such status of what naturopathy blanketly labels as science and such, will stand or fall based upon what I'll call experts' qualified refutations!
And they do REMEMBER.

I myself am just a bumbling education consumer whose experiences in ".edu" university-level higher education in regionally- and federally- accredited naturopathy college in Connecticut that's embedded in a supposed "health science" academic context with such good SCIENCE stuff in it like vital forces and qi, can be summed up with these words: 

academically fraudulent and racket.

That's the UB stuff I covered in Episode 001a of this podcast series, and by 'racket' I mean:

'an unnecessary need or artificial situation naturopathy has induced that it then offers a solution for that leads to its financial gain', as in racketeering.

Simply by stating that naturopathy doesn't JUST simply treat the symptoms or the illness, in comparison to conventional medicine, is one version of that artificial situation:

the claim that conventional medicine doesn't treat the CAUSE or ORIGIN the way naturopathy does because conventional medicine ignores naturopathy's VFSF and such.



After all, it is Bastyr .edu that tells us in the November 2013 dated and 2013 archived "Singer-Songwriter-Naturopathic Student: Debbie Miller’s Double Act" [vsc 2014-01-30]:

"naturopathic medicine seeks to release the body’s healing life force, the vis medicatrix naturae."

How much more ironic can things be with "double act" in the title of a web page speaking of a science-ejected idea that's vitalistic-supernatural and teleological placed beneath the school's broad mission page label of supposed "science-based"?

ND Wilson, if you remember, provided another version of that 'racketeering' when she stated:

"naturopathic medicine is not in exclusion of other forms of medicine, but without it, we are missing the wellness that we seek, and that can help our country during a health care crisis."

Making ordinary people worry, and providing an answer to that worry.

Just more fleecing of the common man:at time when actual medical care costs are skyrocketing, naturopathy offers us crisis-mitigating EMPTY homeopathic and such unicorn tears and magic beans.

You may also note, in terms of my background, that my criticism of naturopathy is not due to credentials such as MD, as in Mary.

I have no such credentials, and just a desire to analyze and inform:

because he couldn't stop thinking, thinking, thinking.

This episode again will be longer than my typical 30-ish minutes [61 minutes, actually].

And I haven't forgotten the overarching question I'd asked when I began this Episode Four, so LONG ago:

"will NYANP naturopathy accurately define and locate itself for the public and legislators in the New York State licensure bill that they are drafting for 2014 along the lines of its 'illegitimate informed consent and actual non-fiduciary status' and 'inauthentic epistemic categorization'?"

Hmmmmmmmmm, what do you think?

 Summary so far:
The table that I'll include in the transcript of this Part Five of Episode 004 will act as a summary of what I've done in the previous four parts.

I've tabulated how I've used each source in regard to naturopathy's:

broad science claim, coded vitalism, overt supernaturalism, professions label, distinct claim, in-house dispensary, teleology, informed consent callousness as measured by the CODING of vitalism and not stating its nonscientific status, and eventual overt vitalism.

In the table, where I've written "no" merely indicates that I did not find that parameter, in my searching of either my database, the paper-based publications I own, or several live or archived web pages from that source, but it doesn't indicate that ultimately such a parameter isn't perhaps available from that source.

Again, there's only so much I can talk about without diluting this episode into chaos.
.
.
[These are most of the sources used in Parts 1 through 4 of Episode 004.  I haven't been exhaustive in terms of what each source COULD indicate. Probably the take-home message is that common across all of naturopathy is a 'broad science claim' and in that alone, I see a huge 'callousness to informed consent' due to the fact that what's essentially naturopathic doesn't survive scientific scrutiny.  Sure there are things within naturopathy that are science, but those things, like anatomy for instance, is NOT essentially naturopathic.  The 'essentially naturopathic' are things like their vitalism, supernaturalism, teleology, homeopathy, iridology and the like.]
So, in sum, what we have from this table, as a 'language preponderance', is:

a broad or blanket SCIENCE label upon 'the naturopathic', an indisputable supernatural belief in something supernatural, whatever that is, of a general kind of "spirit" that can be "developed" and strangely called natural, and that vitalistic and teleological or intelligent "life force" running the show, that ends up being a kind of 'master spirit-intelligence governing the mind-body-spirit' of that naturopathic sectarian metaphysical quadrad, for lack of a better term.

And there are other BIG ETHICAL ISSUES, particularly issues of informed consent.

Now, as theories, THERE IS NO QUALIFYING DATA for that supernaturalism, vitalism, and teleology to explain and explanations without data, in my view, are fabrications and violations of parsimony.

'Life' forces, fields, powers and energies simply DON'T EXIST in terms of the SCIENCE called physics, which studies the forces of the physical universe, and we already know the basis of life in the science of life, biology, and it is not a life force spirit figmentation.

Well, to be more succinct: there is NOTHING for these sectarian ideas to explain that better explanations already don't explain in science, period.

Perhaps those better explanations can be summed up as physicalism:

DNA and then biochemistry, biological complexity and the properties that therein occur

VERSUS

our human imaginations' inherent tendency towards SUPERSTITION and the supernaturalizing of life and its processes.

So, to go BEYOND what data rationally points to is termed, in science, a violation of parsimony.
But, I'll get to science references soon.

First, regarding VMN, I have to mention here that the naturopathy publication Naturopathic Doctor News and Review recently published, in 2013-11 by way of ND Gilbert of CCNM and ND student Murphy of CCNM, "The Healing Power of What? Definitions of the Vis Medicatrix Naturae on Professional Naturopathic Websites" [vsc 2013-12-01].

Fascinating!

We're told:

"the vis medicatrix naturae [...] is at the crux of naturopathic philosophy and principles [agreed...as] a vitalistic ideology, the vis [...was] defined [...from the sampled web pages of] naturopathic medical schools, provincial / state licensing boards, and individual practitioners [...] as something which cannot solely be explained by science and physiochemical forces. The notion that the vis is part of a larger-scale, universal, and spiritual aspect of life, is often stressed [...and the authors write of] the risk of abandoning the larger context of [naturopathy's] nature, as well as a connection with the vitalistic roots of the naturopathic profession [...and] a sense of wholeness between physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, and environmental spheres [...one article author] focuses on the sociocultural, mental-emotional, and spiritual factors of health and illness [...as] an assistant professor at CCNM, teaching naturopathic philosophy and botanical medicine, as well as [being] a clinical supervisor at a community health center in downtown Toronto [...the other author] focuses on the mind-body-spirit connection when treating patients."
There we go:

vitalism-supernaturalism.

But then they write of:

"a bridge between scientific and holistic definitions, as it [VMN] can be interpreted as being a physiological process but can also encompass the vitalistic approach as well as a spiritual component."

Reminding me of ND Elliot and that URGE for epistemic and ontological blending!

It's science, it's supernatural, it's distinct, it's both.
How naturopathic!

Regarding science, we're told:

"the vis can be understood from a physiological, or even mechanistic perspective [that is, by the way, completely historically naive, vitalism was a response against mechanistic, physicalistic explanations of life...as] biological processes which provide support to the body’s homeodynamic nature [...] the vis regulates the healing of wounded tissue and the mounting of immune responses to pathogens, inducing fever, inflammation, etc; it explains bodily structure and function [negative: I do believe DNA explains bodily structure and function, as well as interaction with the actual physical world], the modulatory nature and capabilities of the body, from speed to accuracy [...these] scientific and mechanistic interpretations [I disagree...] which are both material and tangible."

Empirical and material tangible mechanistic?

Ah, NO: there are better, much more parsimonious explanations as to 'what governs physiology and development' and they are, and this is a harsh reality that naturopathy doesn't seem to want to absorb, along the lines of the physiochemical:

DNA and biochemistry, biological complexity and the properties that therein occur.

What the NDs are arguing for is blurring the vastly stark distinction between:the fact that in science life or biology is based on physicalism by way of the empirical, AND our human imagination's inherent tendency towards SUPERSTITION and blind archaic belief by way of a kind of dualism and dogma, particularly as concerns what's 'alive.'

There is distinction between those two views, a stark distinction exists.

Now, AMAZINGLY, there is NO MENTION in this article of a "life force" or a "vital force".

NONE!

Yet even in the same publication, NDNR, you get that transparency in other NDs writings such as CCNM graduate Czeranko, a graduate of the same school as this article's authors [here's her CV at NCNM], who writes in the 2013-04 article "To Fear or Trust the Fever?", which I have in paper:

"when we talk about vital force, the vis medicatrix naturae."

Unbelievable because these two authors are complaining, in viewing these different web pages of naturopathy, that there isn't enough INCLUSION of naturopathy's principle [VFSF]!

For instance, we're also told, regarding bridgeport.edu:

"and as noted previously, Bridgeport fails to mention the vis on its website."

As I'd said at the end of Part Four, UBCNM has become a more OPAQUE place.

And yet in the article, THEY'RE not including the ACTUAL terminology in the article "life force" or "vital force."

We're also told:

"the Foundations of Naturopathic Medicine Project is working towards [...] codifying modern naturopathic knowledge into a cohesive textbook for the profession."

Something to look forward too!

According to Bastyr [vsc 2014-01-30], that textbook is scheduled to be published by Elsevier this 2014, and:

"[is being led by] Pamela Snider, ND [...] FNM executive and senior editor and a Bastyr University alumna [1982...who says this is] 'a comprehensive international naturopathic textbook that codifies naturopathic historical, philosophical, clinical and modern scientific information' [...with] over 300 naturopathic physicians in a dozen countries and thought-leaders from related disciplines participating in the writing."

Yes, ND Snider of Episode 003b, who told us:

"naturopathic medicine relies on the vital life force within human beings [...] we believe in the vital force which has inherent organization, is intelligent and intelligible [...] we have vis medicatrix naturae. Our way is to research the mystery and beauty of the life force, in which we have faith."

According to the NDNR article, in that Foundations book:

"existing definitions of key naturopathic meta-concepts, including the vis [because when you're cool you say 'the vis' for short], have expanded beyond the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians’ (AANP) position paper."

Regarding 'meta', its Wikipedia.org article states:

"in epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about [...] this modern sense of 'an X about X' [...like] 'metadata' are data about data [...] 'meta-cognition' [...is] cognition about cognition [...] 'meta-emotion' [...is] emotion about emotion [etc.]."

Oh, how the irony grows!

The Russian nesting dolls of naturopathy!

So, "meta-concepts" is naturopathy's concepts about their concepts.

Or shall I say, the concepts underneath the inaccurate representation they usually give to the world as to their concepts.

So, I sense more FABRICATION, but how much further 'away, or BEYOND or about' can they go from a metaphysical VFSF running physiology like an intelligent ghost that they refuse to mention? 

And does expansion mean, knowing naturopathy, MORE VEILING, as in expansion of the camouflaging?

I can't wait to find out.

Speaking of international NDs, Elsevier is also the publisher of a book by Australian ND Hechtman, an alumni of NCC which is Nature Care College in Australia.

The book is titled "Clinical Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2014-01-30] from 2011 and has such great gems as:

"Hippocrates, Galen, Avicenna and Dioscorides all acknowledged the need for internal and external balance for health to prevail [I think we've gotten pre-medieval there, classical!]. Underpinning much of ancient healing was recognition of the vital force that has been variously understood in terms of chi, prana, the temperaments, the humours and the elements. Regardless of semantics, the body's energetics have always been considered important and the healing power of nature has been a unifying thread woven through all traditional healing practices."

I would add "all prescientific healing practices."

Yes, discredited MEDIEVAL and classical humoral medicine IMAGINARY forces, fluids, energies EQUATED with "vital force."

Such sanguine, choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic RESPECTABLE company!

Also, and it is a small world.

ND Pizzorno writes in the introduction to ND Hechtman's book:

"the major contribution of Clinical Naturopathic Medicine (CNM) that differentiates it from the Textbook of Natural Medicine (TBNM) [which Pizzorno was a co-editor of] is that it is unabashedly focused entirely on naturopathic medicine. Hechtman and her colleagues expertly look at the historic origins of naturopathic concepts and therapies and then integrate these with scientific research [integrate means blend!] to provide a strong foundation for modern clinical naturopathy [...] one of the greatest problems limiting the reemergence of naturopathic medicine has been the lack of modern textbooks, especially ones based on science [...] for almost a century the mantra of conventional medicine has been that naturopathic medicine is not only not scientific, it is misguided [...here, in Hechtman's book] there is plenty of science. I especially appreciate how the authors carefully considered traditional naturopathic approaches and therapies in the context of modern science."

Plenty of science, because remember what ND Hechtman's book says:

"iridology: the gallbladder region can be located in the right iris and is positioned at 8 o'clock between the liver and the duodenal areas. All three regions are positioned on a straight radius extending from the pupil to the sclera border."

Oh, the JOYS of this loopyness dressed up in a tuxedo, the SADNESS of what is happening to students' minds and patients' trust because beneath that tuxedo there's a clown costume.

I may purchase that book at some point, it's rather expensive right now.

So much to podcast, so little time!

Oh, if anyone hears of a college or university teaching or research position, resident or virtual, that would fit me and what I'm doing here in terms of Naturocrit, by all means contact me.

I figure, if colleges and universities are going to be riddled with this quackademic stuff, if big expensive books are going to be written on this wacko loopy stuff, let's "stand to our duty" and engage in combat, academically and intellectually.

Let's get on the field.

Perhaps naturopathy scholarship fits in somewhere between criminology and stand-up comedy, between deviance and clown-school.

I've no graduate degree, but piles of graduate credits:

mainly doctoral credits from four full-time years of NEASC-accredited naturopathy and basic medical science, and various Master's level courses in the humanities [NYU, CSU, SCSU].

It would be heaven: the mundane kind, of course.

I figure if NYU can go at it [naturopathy] as a twisted and mislabeled "branch of medical science", lets give other people a shot too, at the gravy train, who'll be be more STRAIGHTFORWARD epistemologically, more transparent academically.

NYS's Academic Approval and Regulation of Nonscience Labeled Science:

As I'd said earlier, naturopathy as a supposed profession will be regulated in NY by the ".gov" education department, NYSED.

ND Koda tells us, in the webinar:

"in NY it's different than in other states [...regulation is not] through the department of health [...instead] in NY it is organized under the education law [00.02.25...through] Title VIII of the education law [which] regulates the professions [...the overseeing is by the] Board of Regents, [the] Department of Education, and then there will be a [newly established] State Board or Naturopathy [00.02.44...] the Board of Regents: they have the general power to supervise all education activities in New York. And then under the education law for the professions, they have the authority to supervise the admission and practice of each profession. And in doing that they are allowed to make rules. And they do appoint an officer of professional conduct [...who can] issue subpoenas and issue formal oaths as if you were in a court room [...] and then there's the Department of Education [...which is] the administrative body [...and oversees] the application process [...and administers] the practice of the profession [...and can do] investigations and issue subpoenas [...and also has] the power to make rules [00.04.00...plus a new] State Board of Naturopathy, their function is to assist the Board of Regents and to assist the Department of Education with regards to licensing the profession [...including] conduct [00.04.25...Koda shows us nysed.gov online, 'Education Law: Title VIII - The Professions' wherein naturopathy will be] Article 132a [00.04.50...and he speaks of the overarching Article 130 which defines the overall] grounds for professional misconduct and criminal activities [00.05.19]."

Good to know!

So, let me get this straight.

The New York State ".gov" Department of Education has preponderant science standards for their K-12 public schools.

Incidentally, I went through New York State public schools K-12, and my Bachelor's is from the City University of NY, a public university system. 

And New York is in line to adopt the developing EVEN BETTER Next Generation Science Standards.

And now naturopathy gets to call its essential science-exterior contents, in a law that NYSED will endorse and oversee, "scientific", according to draft bill language and naturopathy's 'historical language preponderance'.

But, the NGSS have something to say about what I see as the 'academic irrationality' of labeling naturopathy's core idea "scientific"!

The Next Generation Science Standards:

The Wikipedia.org article on the NGSS states:

"the Next Generation Science Standards [...whose] final draft [...] was released in April 2013 [...] were developed by a consortium of 26 states and by the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Research Council, and Achieve [...it] is a multistate effort to create new education standards that are 'rich in content and practice, arranged in a coherent manner across disciplines and grades to provide all students an internationally bench-marked science education' [...] the 26 states involved in developing them [...include] New York [...and] many states [...are expected to adopt them] within one-to-two years [...] the purposes of the standards include combating ignorance of science [...] developing greater interest in science [...] to help students understand the scientific process of developing and testing ideas and have a greater ability to evaluate scientific evidence."

That Wikipedia entry also states:

"some states have expressed resistance towards the Next Generations Science Standards due to the standards' inclusion of anthropogenic climate change and evolution, despite the support of the scientific establishment" for those realities.

Now, I'm a 2014 member of the National Center for Science Education, which combats antievolution and anti-climate science public school interference situations.

Ah, the NCSE, who[m] I'd used in other episodes regarding the NABT's Position Paper on vitalism, that stated in "National Association of Biology Teachers (1995)":

"NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific processes. Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom."

The RESPECTABLE company vitalism keeps!

And here we are, almost 20 years after that position paper, with vitalism claimed to be science at colleges and universities of naturopathy, and about to be labeled as science by the NYSED by way of this 2014 naturopathy draft bill language.

Do you start so see the parallels?

Vitalism is like antievolutionism and anti-global-warmingism:

the proponents of such positions are either SCIENCE ignorant or science denying or other things impenetrable to the findings and methods of science, and usually promote or are filtered by a biased or a priori position, whether that be orthodox religion, a more say 'diffuse religiosity' of that New Age swath like what we got from ND Sensenig in Episode 001b, or commercial interest.

Anyway, NYS had stated:

"the NGSS are based on the Framework for K-12 Science Education developed by the National Research Council."

The 2012 version of that publication is available at the National Academies Press ".edu" page.

There are 146 instances of the word "natural" in that document, but not the kind of naturopathic natural that contains supernaturalism:

there are no instances of "spirit" or "soul".

And, there are 169 instances of the word "evidence".

That's ironic, because the 1997 AANP book told us that:

"evidence is the cornerstone of scientific inquiry."

You would think naturopathy's [essential supernatural] contents WOULD be there, since SO science-based.

After all, the AZNMA-AANP had written in their 2002 archive page "Scientific Validation - Naturopathic Medicine Passes the Test" [vsc 2014-01-16]:

“it is difficult to find another disciple which has successfully withstood as much scientific scrutiny as naturopathic medicine has."

BUT, sadly for the naturopathy movement, there are NO instances [even] of the term naturopathy or naturopathic, but there is one occurrence of naturopathy's core idea, which I'll get to in a moment.

The vision of the NGSS is:

"a more inclusive, focused, and authentic science education experience for all students [...by way of] a coherent set of science standards [...] to prepare citizens for the 21st century [...with] coherence across all subject areas of the K-12 curriculum."

Regarding science, preponderantly as a method of inquiry, we're reminded:

"although there is no universal agreement about teaching the nature of science, there is a strong consensus about characteristics of the scientific enterprise that should be understood by an educated citizen [...] what engages all scientists [...] is a process of critique and argumentation. Because they examine each others ideas and look for flaws, controversy and debate among scientists are normal occurrences, neither exceptional nor extraordinary. Moreover, science has established a formal mechanism of peer review for establishing the credibility of any individual scientist’s work. The ideas that survive this process of review and criticism are the ones that become well established in the scientific community."

And yet naturopathy, which is "very scientific" according to ND Wilson of NYANP, calls criticism of its contents"inflammatory", as ND Koda [bill architect of NYANP] expressed regarding the MMS push-back over the NDs' attempts at licensure there.

My own "critique and argumentation" concerning naturopathy has in fact been termed, "deranged."

Put a negative sign in front of that, this is naturopathy after all, where values are usually reversed!

But, if calling the naked emperor naked is deranged, then I accept the compliment.

I was raised to call the naked emperor naked.

So, this is where I remind naturopaths who may be listening to this podcast series that if they are going to claim "scientific" upon the essentially naturopathic, and "humanistic" as the NYANP bill does, and "nonsectarian science" as my ND school alma mater does, then EXPECT your ideas to be WRUNG-OUT THOROUGHLY by such rigorous processes as:

 analysis, criticism, and debate.

And part of that process is my invocation of the NGSS contents in relation to 'the essentially naturopathic.'

If naturopaths decide to DO science, and put THEIR STUFF through that mechanism I just quoted from by way of NGSS, and supernaturalism and kind survives scientific scrutiny and revolutionizes all-things-scientific, 'I'll eat my hat and swallow the buckle whole' as they say.

The challenge:

get vitalism, supernaturalism, teleology, homeopathy, detoxification, craniosacral therapy, iridology and the like actually "science-based" and WIN THAT NOBEL PRIZE and perhaps James Randi's Million Dollars.

Or, you could MERELY do -- as naturopathy does -- simply FABRICATE what you want to be regarded as science into LAW and WHINE that any discussion, refutation, or OBJECTION to your claims are, to use that term ND Koda used again:

"inflammatory".

Boo-hoo!

This is their "inauthentic categorization":

natural when supernatural, natural when fabricated, natural when fake or inauthentic, scientific without the PROCEDURES.

I'll NOTE you have to EARN that categorical label of science!

It is not DECREED by law from a position of authority.

If you recall in a previous episode, I quoted from ND Pizzorno who had said he had "coined" the term "science based natural medicine" to describe naturopathy.

Science is not just etching words in stone and carrying them down from the mountain Imperiously [coining!].

And, if you recall, I had called ND Pizzorno in that earlier episode, "the science-based Emperor", as naturopathy so often DECREES AUTHORITATIVELY by way of its lists of principles, oaths, and therapeutic orders.

But if science is to be the-essentially-naturopathic's garment, then there RIGHT NOW is quite a nakedness.

Only evidence and process are the authorities, here:

Joe, Paul, Pam, Jim, Doni and Steve.

WE MUST hold the torch of enlightenment to 'the essentially naturopathic', and they SHOULD feel raked over the coals in the process because that is the forge within which the scientific is fired!

So, I'd said there is one mention of 'the essentially naturopathic' in that NAP publication.

There is one instance of "vital force", in fact, and it doesn't look good for 'team naturopathic.'

We're told:

"understanding how science functions requires a synthesis of content knowledge, procedural knowledge, and epistemic knowledge [meta-knowledge?]. Procedural knowledge refers to the methods that scientists use to ensure that their findings are valid and reliable. It includes an understanding of the importance and appropriate use of controls, double-blind trials, and other procedures (such as methods to reduce error) used by science. As such, much of it is specific to the domain and can only be learned within science. Procedural knowledge has also been called 'concepts of evidence'. Epistemic knowledge is knowledge of the constructs and values that are intrinsic to science. Students need to understand what is meant, for example, by an observation, a hypothesis, an inference, a model, a theory, or a claim and be able to readily distinguish between them. An education in science should show that new scientific ideas are acts of imagination, commonly created these days through collaborative efforts of groups of scientists whose critiques and arguments are fundamental to establishing which ideas are worthy of pursuing further. Ideas often survive because they are coherent with what is already known, and they either explain the unexplained, explain more observations, or explain in a simpler and more elegant manner. 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."

Oh my, what a present!

As a bumbling researcher and amateur epistemologist, I APPLAUD the inclusion of "epistemic" in the document.

Let my make that Battleship noise which means "you sank my naturopathy":

[blast noise].

So, doctoral-level naturopathy's labeling of the vitalistic-supernatural as science VIOLATES the science standards that even apply to even a kindergartener.

It would be a mistake to say that naturopathy is being caught off-guard by NEW scientific FINDINGS and DEVELOPMENTS, though.

The 2012 NAP document is merely an iteration of decades-persisting scientific view of vitalism!

So, NYSED will contradict the rigorous IMPROVED science contents it will likely embrace in the near future by allowing naturopathy to legally protect itself with a law that labels its essential vitalism-supernaturalism -- no matter how veiled, coded and camouflaged they make it – science though that label is in fact FALSE.

What a nice arrangement: licensed falsehood in ACADEMIC ".gov" [and '.edu'] partnership.

And I ask these questions again:

a) is it professional misconduct to practice what isn't scientifically supported medically with the false label upon such of "scientific"?

b) is it EDUCATIONAL misconduct to pass a law that does that, since this law is under the ".gov" education department of NYS?

New York Academy of Sciences:

If you want the Full Monty particularly from biology, regarding vitalism and teleology, then there's no one I can recommend better than Ernst Mayr.

If you recall ND Pizzorno's book "Total Wellness" from 1997 that I quoted from in Episode 003b stated:

"our self-healing abilities, the life-force within each of us, which naturopathic physicians call the vis medicatrix naturae [...] our life-force or spirit [...] this teleological force, the healer within, that is the essence of each of us. The real promise is a deepening understanding of and faith in a universe in which the underlying design is one of total wellness [VFSF is 'intelligent by design!'...] all the information in this book is fully referenced to the scientific research literature."

Promises, promises.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary states regarding teleology:

"the study of evidences of design in nature [...] a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature [...] a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes [...] the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose [...] the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena [...] causality in which the effect is explained by an end (Greek, telos) to be realized. Teleology thus differs essentially from efficient causality in which an effect is dependent on prior events [...] modern science has tended to appeal ONLY to efficient causes in its investigations."

In naturopathyland though, you were MEANT to be well [it's designed], you deviated from that path somehow, it is your VFSF that sends signals of that to you [it's intelligent], and the naturopath will correct that essentially 'spiritual' misdirection causing physical disharmony [the cause]!

[like ND Hinchey (UBCNM 2005) in my current state of CT who writes in the 2013 archive page "Principles of Naturopathic Medicine": "1. The healing power of nature (Vis medicatrix naturae): the body has an inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the body’s vital life force [...] the core component of naturopathic medicine is the belief that health must go beyond treatment of immediate symptoms as in allopathic medicine [...] Illness is a purposeful process of the organism. The process of healing can cause the manifestation of symptoms, which are an expression of the body’s vital force attempting to heal itself. Any therapy that interferes with this natural healing process by masking or suppressing symptoms without removing the underlying cause is harmful and should be avoided. The natural life force of the individual must be supported to facilitate the healing process."  The unique imaginary problem that naturopathy creates that it alone can...fix.].


"one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists."

And it may be possible to start to think that the teleology of naturopathy, the intelligence or the purposefulness of that VFSF, greatly parallels the idea of 'intelligent design', which has been, as we know from Kitzmiller v. Dover, vetted as science-exterior and disguised creationism.

[naturopathy similarly claims a "philosophy" but because it is directly supernatural, it is really a belief system like creationism religiosity].


The NYAS 2007 archived page "The Autonomy of Biology: How the Complexity of Living Systems Makes Biology Unique (2004)" [vsc 2014-01-23], which is an excerpt of Mayr's book "What Makes Biology Unique?" states:

"Chapter 2: The Autonomy of Biology [...] it took more than two hundred years and the occurrence of three sets of events before a separate science of the living world, biology, was recognized [...] one can assign these events to three different sets [...the first set] the refutation of certain erroneous principles [...] under this heading, I deal with the support for certain basic ontological principles that later were shown to be erroneous [...] certain basic explanatory principles not supported by the laws of the physical sciences and eventually found to be invalid. The two major principles here involved are vitalism and a belief in cosmic teleology [...] as soon as it had been demonstrated that these two principles are invalid and, more broadly, that none of the phenomena of the living world is in conflict with the natural laws of the physicalists, there was no longer any reason for not recognizing biology as a legitimate autonomous science equivalent to physics [...per vitalism] the nature of life, the property of being living [...] most naturalists [...] were convinced that in a living organism certain forces are active that do not exist in inanimate nature. They concluded that, just as the motion of planets and stars is controlled by an occult, invisible force called gravitation by Newton, the movements and other manifestations of life in organisms are controlled by an invisible force, lebenskraft or vis vitalis [vital force]. Those who believed in such a force were called vitalists [...] popular from the early seventeenth century to the early twentieth century [...] the end of vitalism came when it no longer could find any supporters. Two causes were largely responsible for this: first, the failure of literally thousands of unsuccessful experiments conducted to demonstrate the existence of a lebenskraft; second, the realization that the new biology, with the methods of genetics and molecular biology, was able to solve all the problems for which scientists traditionally had invoked the lebenskraft [that's parsimony]. In other words, the proposal of a lebenskraft had simply become unnecessary [as in non-parsimonious...] the critical logic of the vitalists was impeccable. But all their efforts to find a scientific answer to the so-called vitalistic phenomena were failures. Generations of vitalists labored in vain to find a scientific explanation for the lebenskraft until it finally became quite clear that such a force simply does not exist. That was the end of vitalism [...] teleology is the second invalid principle that had to be eliminated from biology before it qualified as a science equivalent to physics. Teleology deals with the explanation of natural processes that seem to lead automatically to a definite end or goal [purposefulness or as I've said, naturopathy's idea that the life force has intelligence...] Aristotle invoked a fourth cause, the causa finalis [...] alas, no evidence for the existence of such a teleological principle could ever be found, and the discoveries of genetics and paleontology eventually totally discredited cosmic teleology." 

And, incidentally, in a 2004 Scientific American article titled "The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr" we're told:

“I show that biology is as serious, honest, legitimate a science as the physical sciences. All the occult stuff that used to be mixed in with philosophy of biology, like vitalism and teleology [naturopathy's OCCULT or hidden basis!!!...] all this sort of funny business I show is out. Biology has exactly the same hard-nosed basis as the physical sciences, consisting of the natural laws. The natural laws apply to biology just as much as they do to the physical sciences.”

If biology wasn't able to comply with the natural laws, by the way, we would be invoking supernaturalism, and that's what the naturopaths are doing [in violation of parsimony!].

NYU and University College London Physicist and Mathematician Alan Sokal:
Sokal writes in the 2006 archived “Pseudoscience and Postmodernism: Antagonists or Fellow travelers?” at physics.nyu.edu:

"for my own part, I have been struck by the fact that nearly all the pseudoscientific systems to be examined in this essay are based philosophically on vitalism: that is, the idea that living beings, and especially human beings, are endowed with some special quality (life energy, elan vital, prana, qi) that transcends the ordinary laws of physics. Mainstream science has rejected vitalism since at least the 1930s, for a plethora of good reasons that have only become stronger with time [...] but these good reasons are understood by only a tiny fraction of the populace, even in the industrialized countries where science is supposedly held in high esteem. Moreover -- and perhaps much more importantly -- the anti-vitalism characteristic of modern science is deeply unsettling emotionally to most (perhaps all) people, even to those who are not conventionally religious […for instance, and essential to naturopathy] homeopathy was developed by […] Hahnemann […] and its basic principles remain largely unchanged to this day, despite radical advances in our understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology that thoroughly undermine its alleged scientific basis. Its central tenets are the so-called law of similars, or ‘like cures like’ […] the so-called law of potentizations […] and a vitalist theory of biology, which holds that living beings are endowed with some special quality (‘vital force’) that transcends the ordinary laws of physics […these] homeopathic remedies […] are pure water and starch; the alleged ‘active ingredient’ is so highly diluted that in most cases not a single molecule remains in the final product."

NYU naturopathy versus NYU physics!

Other Academic Sources:

Here are a few other quotes that catch my eye from my collecting activities over the years.

Now, these are schools, as in colleges or universities, as in".edu", from the collection Appendix C.01.


“the vitalistic viewpoint (the doctrine of the supernatural) [...being] that the universe is controlled by supernatural powers called spirits, gods, or vital forces [...a premise] not supported by evidence, [that] cannot be tested, and is therefore outside the realm of science [...] those utilizing a vitalistic viewpoint have often attributed illness to such causes as curses, spells, divine retribution, sin, malignant influences, the will of god, or possession by evil spirits.”

Oh, superstition!


“vitalism: the opposite of materialism. Vitalistic understandings of life imply that there is some unmeasurable, unobservable feature of organisms [...] call it spirit or whatever, it is a supernatural entity, [particularly] in the sense that it exists outside the laws of nature [...] any supernatural phenomena, being at its core unobservable, incomprehensible, and outside of natural law, cannot be scientifically tested. Vitalistic explanations [...] are outside of science and not the subject of science.”

Not processable by science, science exterior.


"the number of prominent vitalistic scientists gradually declined during the latter part of the nineteenth century. The last great vitalist[s], the physiologist Johannes Mueller and the evolutionist Herbert Spencer, could no longer hold out against their younger counterparts, Helmholtz and Darwin. Psychologists in the Helmholtz School of medicine turned to the models of physics and chemistry and relied only upon physical and chemical forces to explain biological phenomena. Transformation equations were being generated; energy changes from one kind to another was an empirical fact. Mechanical energy could be transformed into electrical energy and then into chemical energy. The interrelation among forms of energy is a major physiological explanation. The concept of force was challenged by the conservation of energy doctrine. Life force was unnecessary to explain animal functions."

How succinct.

And again, those who do not remember, are doomed to repeat...

d) Now, the last education-related quote I'll employ is from [the court case] Wikipedia's "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District”.

I'm wondering if, like in Dover PA, the involvement and eventual accomplicement of the NYSED in relation to naturopathy pseudoscience will open up NYS for a lawsuit similar to what the Dover Area School District lost to the tune of one million dollars.

To quote from the Wikipedia page for PBS's program "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" winner of the 2008 Peabody Award and the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science Journalism Award which honors excellence in science reporting:

"Judge John E. Jones III rules that intelligent design is an inherently religious theory and therefore the teaching of it is not permitted as part of a science curriculum."

Now, intelligent design didn't invoke the supernatural directly, the way naturopathy directly invokes a particular kind of supernatural belief set [the sectarian].

One could argue that the distance is not so great between

'is intelligent design scientific or just repacked creationism nonscience sectarianism' [the latter] 

and 

'is naturopathy's vital force and supernaturalism scientific or just repacked New Age-like nonscience sectarianism' [the latter, again].

There may not be direct Establishment Clause urgencies involved [civil liberties; I'm not a lawyer BTW], but, I think it's a rather urgent thing to decide whether or not to give permission to a small group of irrationalists to unleash abject magic beans and unicorn tears based stuff onto the NYS citizenry while sporting a lab coat, stethoscope, and the misnomers "excellent", "medical", "humanistic" and "science".

 The Mother of All Episode 004 Conclusions:
But this won't be long, what else can I possibly say?

I have exposed a RUSE overall, IMHO, a muddled ruse.

I'd asked the overarching episode question:
"will NYANP naturopathy accurately define and locate itself for the public and legislators in the New York State licensure bill that they are drafting for 2014 along the lines of its 'illegitimate informed consent and actual non-fiduciary status' and 'inauthentic epistemic categorization'?"
I know what I think, at the present moment:

for the first part of the question, regarding the supposed "consent" that NY naturopaths are implementing which is actually a waiver of their liability and NYS's, IN NO WAY would I accede hard-won basic consumer- and patient- rights to these health sectarians and to their NYSDE accomplices.

For shame!

If you are going to practice medicine, no matter what you call yourself and what you market it as, I as a patient in granting you those privileges MUST HAVE 'the standard grievance apparatus / the standard justice apparatus' because the physician-patient relationship is so unbalanced.
The physician-patient relationship is a fiduciary relationship, as in that sense of credat emptor.

This bill draft language demotes that relationship.

Instead, there will be a naturopath-patient relationship not much different than that of a used car lot salesman and someone who walks onto their lot:

caveat emptor!

Beware, buyer.
I think this is a deprofessionalizing of the doctor-patient relationship and it will set a VERY SCARY precedent.

Now, that's one aspect of "consent".
The other is simply the fact that the labels "scientific" and "humanistic", in my view, are false and as the second part of the overarching question expresses it, an "inauthentic epistemic categorization."

And these labels will have the backing of NYS's ULTIMATE academic authority.
I propose, based upon naturopathy's 'historic language preponderance', that we replace the label "scientific" with 'science-exterior mixed with science and all improperly labeled science', and "humanistic" with 'sectarian'.

How can we consent in an informed manner if we aren't told the truth and are fed what's false instead?
Regarding the sectarian, to be clear about my context, if you remember earlier in this episode, I'd quoted from the Popular Science Monthly c1889:

"science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what can not be proved, for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed."
What is a VFSF, that has no data to support it of a scientific sense, if not a dogma.

When naturopaths speak and write of it, I consider those arguments to be similar to apologetics and professions of faith.
What are naturopathy's principles and oath, and activities aimed at their goals, but a creed and similar to a religion's rites.

Of course, we're one step closer to false-posturing than "assuming what cannot be proved" in that naturopaths improperly claim science HAS proved their VFSF, the supernatural-spiritual, and junk like homeopathy by way of their blanket "science-based" label.
Yet, since we are dealing with a bill draft, time will provide the ultimate answer to "will NYANP naturopathy accurately define and locate itself" in terms of "its illegitimate informed consent and actual non-fiduciary status".

I'll end with this observation:

naturopathy is constantly accusing, in a dog-whistle kind of way, conventional medicine and its practitioners of merely treating symptoms and that IT, naturopathy, treats the CAUSE.

[said even at the University of Minnesota: "naturopathic physicians treat the underlying causes of illness rather than just the symptoms of disease [...] naturopathic medicine is a science-based tradition [...] these principles are continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances [...] they cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] this includes therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, botanical medicines, homeopathy [...] naturopathic medicine follows a number of key principles: [#1] the healing power of nature"].
Well, when I mention what's inside of naturopathy that is not scientific, though they use such a categorical label anyway the specific issue that I've then highlighted is itself, truly, just a SYMPTOM.

The disease, the CAUSE of 'the naturopathillogical', is...

epistemic conflation.

[This is the issue of transparency, objectivity, honesty and integrity that I'd mentioned in Part 2 in terms of professional ethics with objectivity particularly meaning, by way of Wikipedia.org: "generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings"].

This has been part five and the conclusion of this five-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 004.

Thank you for boldly listening.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)