*And I have to greatly thank The Skeptic's Dictionary's Dr. Carroll for adding links to his/the naturopathy entry for both my 2006 thesis and my Naturocrit Podcast.
001. the First Half of Episode 006 (006a) script and annotations:
Standard Introduction:
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 two-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 006, I will revisit a 2006 'self-published thesis' I wrote which is briefly titled:
"The Epistemic Conflation Of A School of Thought Claiming To Be Scientific."
"The Epistemic Conflation Of A School of Thought Claiming To Be Scientific."
I'll oftentimes abbreviate that as ECSTCS.
Technically, its full title, as you will hear, is:
"'Prophets Facing Backward:' Naturopathy and Knowledge Type from the Inside – The Epistemic Conflation of a School of Thought Claiming to be Scientific."
Technically, its full title, as you will hear, is:
"'Prophets Facing Backward:' Naturopathy and Knowledge Type from the Inside – The Epistemic Conflation of a School of Thought Claiming to be Scientific."
This piece basically set up much of my current approach to naturopathy.
It came about after leaving naturopathy school in 2002, after four years there, and then researching and thinking about naturopathy for about another four years.
It came about after leaving naturopathy school in 2002, after four years there, and then researching and thinking about naturopathy for about another four years.
I consider it 'my doctoral thesis for my ND', a degree I voluntarily ceased because, essentially, I found that whole ND shebang to be:
'essentially based upon FALSEHOODS'.
[Two 'essentially's for the price of one!]
'essentially based upon FALSEHOODS'.
[Two 'essentially's for the price of one!]
Now, my nickname in ND school was Dr. Bob Ironic and perhaps this is the greatest of my IRONIES:
'my doctoral thesis for my ND' quite easily dismantles naturopathy as a legitimate academic category and cohesive body of thought, and dismantles naturopathy as a supposed ethical or professional clinical application.
I will, at times, interject the phrase "2015 comment #", and I will detail those NEW 2015 comments at the end of my recitation / republication.
I will also, of course, provide a full transcript at the Naturocrit Blog.
My 2015 spoken word, this Episode 006, will be in black-colored font.
That transcript will, in addition to any '2015 comment' additions to the original text, contain, at times, strikethoroughs of my original 2006 text.
These strikethroughs, which will be in light blue, are often parentheticals, hyperlinks, details or thoughts from 2006 which I feel, if spoken, would bog down this audio recitation.
And my overarching question regarding this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 006 is:
what holds up from 2006's ECSTCS, and how may I have changed in my criticism and analysis of naturopathy since publishing this almost 10 years ago?
Abstract:The Epistemic Conflation Of A School of Thought Claiming To Be Scientific(if you don't see a picture above this title, click here, http://standtoyourduty.blogspot.com/)
Full Title:
"'Prophets Facing Backward:' Naturopathy and Knowledge Type from the Inside – The Epistemic Conflation of a School of Thought Claiming to be Scientific."
2015 Comment #001.
Legend: This treatise's central text is in black and left-justified; notations, clarifications and associations are in blue and often right-justified; very noteworthy things -- particularly vitalism -- are in red, and teleology-finalism stuff is in purple. Hypertext links are in orange. Abstract:
The claim that naturopathy
[aka: 'natural medicine,' 'nature cure,' 'naturopathic medicine,' 'science-based natural medicine founded upon holistic philosophy,' 'the science-based vitalistic,' 'integrative medicine,' 'natural medicine that integrates body, mind, spirit, and nature,' 'a body of knowledge that bridges the worlds of science, nature, and spirit']
is en masse
[that is: as a whole, categorically, overarchingly of the label] 'scientific, science-based, and a branch of scientific medicine';
for these claims by naturopathy, see Appendix I. (click here, http://thesciencethataintscience.blogspot.com]
is evaluated from the position of epistemics
[which the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006) defines as:
"of or pertaining to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it"].
Since naturopathy does not demarcate knowledge kind – in fact, naturopathy deliberately combines knowledge kinds
[that is: conflates, blends, equates, fuses -- or, as is fashionable presently, 'integrates'
(click here, http://ndepistemicconflation.blogspot.com/)]
[by way of] per:
a) the intentional equation of aspects of the a priori and a posteriori[detailed below];
My 2015 spoken word, this Episode 006, will be in black-colored font.
That transcript will, in addition to any '2015 comment' additions to the original text, contain, at times, strikethoroughs of my original 2006 text.
These strikethroughs, which will be in light blue, are often parentheticals, hyperlinks, details or thoughts from 2006 which I feel, if spoken, would bog down this audio recitation.
Episode question:
And my overarching question regarding this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 006 is:
what holds up from 2006's ECSTCS, and how may I have changed in my criticism and analysis of naturopathy since publishing this almost 10 years ago?
Main Text of ECSTCS:
Abstract:
Full Title:
"'Prophets Facing Backward:' Naturopathy and Knowledge Type from the Inside – The Epistemic Conflation of a School of Thought Claiming to be Scientific."
2015 Comment #001.
The claim that naturopathy
[aka: 'natural medicine,' 'nature cure,' 'naturopathic medicine,' 'science-based natural medicine founded upon holistic philosophy,' 'the science-based vitalistic,' 'integrative medicine,' 'natural medicine that integrates body, mind, spirit, and nature,' 'a body of knowledge that bridges the worlds of science, nature, and spirit']
is en masse
[that is: as a whole, categorically, overarchingly of the label] 'scientific, science-based, and a branch of scientific medicine';
is evaluated from the position of epistemics
[which the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006) defines as:
"of or pertaining to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it"].
Since naturopathy does not demarcate knowledge kind – in fact, naturopathy deliberately combines knowledge kinds
[that is: conflates, blends, equates, fuses -- or, as is fashionable presently, 'integrates'
[by way of] per:
a) the intentional equation of aspects of the a priori and a posteriori
b) the intentional unlimiting of science to allow for explanations, bodies of knowledge, methodologies, and knowledge-types that preponderantly are not supported by science, are nonscientific, have been scientifically-dismissed and -refuted, or are unscienceable
– such epistemic conflation
alone is cause for dismissing naturopathy’s claim that they are en masse scientific.
Since 'the scientific' is essentially and preponderantly an epistemic delineation
and because naturopathy maintains, while epistemically conflated, that such a blended-knowledge type is en masse scientific anyway,
the domain is best described as irrational and pseudoscience
The author includes specific examples that collectively indicate profound epistemic misrepresentation
[minimally, the naturopathic decree / labeling ' fiat: that 'the vitalistic is the scientific' -- overall, the naturopathic labeling that 'the supernatural spiritistic autoentheistic is scientific,' that 'the scientifically discarded is scientific,' that 'the unscienceable is scientific']
by naturopathic academic institutions[which are REGIONALLY accredited, and States approved], national and State guild organizations, and practitioners.
by naturopathic academic institutions
The author maintains that there is a naturopathy-wide mannerism [as in 'a racket'] that involves disguising, omitting, and misrepresenting pertinent categorically-descriptive and categorically-comparative information as regards 'the naturopathic.'
The author believes it is ethically crucial that potential naturopathy students, and scientific and allied health professionals, be made aware of what naturopathy essentially is in terms of knowledge type and professionalism in a manner that is nonmanipulative and transparent.
In support, the author provides two tabulated overviews of current naturopathic characteristics, beliefs and behaviors [mannerisms].
Additionally, extensive appendices, in directory format, detailing naturopathy’s requisite, essential, and underpinning
vitalism,
the scientific rejection of vitalism,
naturopathy's statements of yet being scientific
and other sectic sundries
are provided.
Conclusion:
The naturopathic en masse scientific claim is therefore essentially pseudoscientific.
The claim is false, it is a misrepresentation / mislabeling.
The claim is false, it is a misrepresentation / mislabeling.
It follows that the required beliefs, mannerisms, and therapeutic systems within the naturopathy domain [their sectic peculiarities] place any future graduates and practitioners of this 'school of thought,' as well as current practitioners and associated purveyors of naturopathy [individuals, institutions, organizations] in quite an obviously unethical and essentially fraudulent position -- specifically as regards the unscientific being posed as professionally scientific, particularly as concerns what isn't "scientific medicine" being mislabeled professionally as such.
Part I. Introduction:
A major medical journal recently published a glowing autoendorsement [auto=self] of naturopathy or naturopathic medicine, authored by several institutional luminaries and practitioners of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] branch of that school of thought.[1]
I felt intellectually dissatisfied and ethically disturbed upon reading the article.
Dissembling obscurantism [!] -- that is, disguise and omission -- is the typical naturopathic style of miscommunicating what truly is an epistemologically undifferentiated, radical worldview.
Dissembling obscurantism [!] -- that is, disguise and omission -- is the typical naturopathic style of miscommunicating what truly is an epistemologically undifferentiated, radical worldview.
In terms of disguise, the AANP has irresponsibly misrepresented that which is essentially ‘the naturopathic.’
In terms of omission, the authors have sidestepped several very important issues raised by a similarly peer-reviewed recently published critical analysis.[2]
In terms of omission, the authors have sidestepped several very important issues raised by a similarly peer-reviewed recently published critical analysis.[2]
I attended one of the AANP schools from 1998-2002, the University of Bridgeport’s College of Naturopathic Medicine [UB; UBCNM].
Due to, in my view, the unethical, unlawful, and unprofessional position that ‘doing naturopathy’ places one within overall, and the fraud of naturopathic education, I ceased participation before graduating.
Due to, in my view, the unethical, unlawful, and unprofessional position that ‘doing naturopathy’ places one within overall, and the fraud of naturopathic education, I ceased participation before graduating.
I now realize I had been cleverly beguiled into wasting very large amounts of time, energy, and money.
To balance the AANP's portrayal, I believe it’s my obligation [that is: an academic duty, an ethical duty, an intellectual / scholarly duty] to share my impressions of the field of naturopathy.
In particular, it is important to communicate exactly where naturopathy lies in relation to the two typically exclusive categorical knowledge types that naturopathy professes to simultaneously and expertly occupy[and also explicitly claim are the same type of knowledge!]:
In particular, it is important to communicate exactly where naturopathy lies in relation to the two typically exclusive categorical knowledge types that naturopathy professes to simultaneously and expertly occupy
i) the supernatural, metaphysical and idealistic a priori;
[e.g.: 1) vitalism; 2) spiritism
3) teleological-finalism
and ii) the scientific, secular, and empirical / sensuous a posteriori.
As a former student of this school of thought, and a current independent aggregator of the naturopathy field -- as I am neither an ND nor MD, and I have been exploring the relationship of naturopathy to the scientific and to the supernatural for several years now -- perhaps a partial encapsulation from an actually non-sectarian, unaligned and informed perspective can be helpful in this matter.
The AANP has stated “consumers should know what they are getting when they seek the services of a naturopathic physician,”[3] and I agree.
Clinicians and researchers in the healthcare and science areas, and potential education consumers who may seek to be trained into naturopathy, deserve information that is as objective and complete as possible concerning these practitioners and institutions who claim to be and claim to be colleagues of scientists, scientific institutions, and primary care responsible scientific medical physicians.
The specific naturopathic mannerism I will discuss is an inability to abide the basic epistemic delineation which science operates upon.
It follows then that naturopathic statements of being 'scientific, science-based, science, and a branch of medical science' are nonsense since they have radically unlimited the definition of science to such an extent that science and nonscience are indiscernible
Part II. Delineating knowledge type as epistemics, and then blending those types:
Part II.A. Typifying:
It is generally acknowledged that knowledge or information exists in various categories:
"epistemology, from the Greek words episteme (knowledge) and logos (word/speech) is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin and scope of knowledge [...] a priori knowledge is knowledge gained or justified by reason alone [which I will call the nonsensous], without the direct or indirect influence of any particular experience (here, experience usually means observation of the world through sense perception [the sensuous...] a posteriori knowledge is any other sort of knowledge; that is, knowledge the attainment or justification of which requires reference to experience. This is also called empirical knowledge."[4]
"Epistemology -- the science of the methods and validity of knowledge."[5]
"Epistemics-- singular noun: the scientific study of knowledge, its acquisition and its communication."[6]
"Epistemics -- a word coined in Edinburgh University in 1969 to label a new school dedicated to the scientific, as opposed to the philosophical, study of knowledge."[7]
It is not the purpose of this paper to argue the finer points of philosophy [or the finer demarcation issues as regards science].
I will employ the philosophical term ‘epistemic type’ to indicate that it is standard practice to properly and stringently delineate knowledge kind, en masse.
Information is not all the same:
that which is presupposed without evidence and unchanging is not that which is derived from sensuous experience and tentative.
Ramp both areas up in intensity and it is commonly stated that the supernatural and the ‘philosophical- metaphysical-idealistic’ as I will term it, as contrasted with the scientifically rigorous and practical, are literally worlds apart epistemically:
the former are a priori in kind, as matters and articles of faith ["belief that is not based on proof,">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith<], preference, abstraction, and conjecture without any direct requirement for testing against or support / origin from sensuous evidence, while the latter is a posteriori in kind and furthermore employs the stringent testing of predictions derived from plausible hypotheses based upon empirical or sensuous evidence gathered from the natural world and then statistically filtered.
Such delineation is not obscure:
the legal system, particularly as pertains to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and its ‘Establishment Clause’ separating Church and State, obviously must acknowledge and employ such a knowledge type difference, and similarly, so does modern scientific medicine.
Modern scientific medicine developed particularly because sectarian "allopathy surrendered" to a non-sectarian a posteriori view which, by definition, maintains "no presupposition that is not common to it with all the natural sciences, with all logical thinking."[see 8]
As a necessary epistemic characteristic, "scientific medicine [...] brushes aside all historic dogma."[see 8]
On the other hand, the a priori or sectarianistic in knowledge type [usually, because what's being stated is a specific kind of supernaturality view / an 'articles of faith' set -- i.e. naturo.s vitalism, spiritism, spiritual development, therapeutic spiritualism, teleology-finalism, holistic 'bodymindspirit whatever' etc.] -- prescientific "medical sectarians" like naturopaths and kind, by definition -- share the mannerism of:
"[beginning with the] mind made up [...maintaining] a finished and supposedly adequate dogma or principle [...yet, and still] to plead in advance a principle couched in pseudo-scientific language or of extra-scientific character is to violate scientific quality."[8]
What I will say about naturopathic epistemic sensitivity is simply that they do not abide epistemic delineation.
[They'll often argue that 'the mind and body are not separate,' per 'that which is mental is therefore that which is empirical' {I'm not arguing for dualism here}; specifically, they'll castigate mechanistic materialism and wax metaphysically / idealistically - ideologically / supernaturally -- and call the whole thing "scientific medicine" and "objective observation" that's "not a belief system."].
The blending of epistemic type is at the heart of their dogmatic ‘philosophy,’ while simultaneously the blended knowledge is deliberately and falsely labeled scientific [and nonsectarian].
The remainder of this section will entail this conflation or blending [or integrating] of knowledge type fallacy that I call the naturopathic “wine plus mud equals wine” claim, or their “pile apples and oranges together and say it’s a pile of one kind of fruit” mannerism.
[aka ‘naturopathy blends, naturopathy combines’ – or, ‘all fruit is one fruit, and muddy wine is pure wine’ -- and quite thoroughly, in their view, 'the scientific and the supernatural are the same type of knowledge -- scientific'].
One AANP type ND [Jared Zeff, ND], who co-chaired the AANP committee [with Pamela Snider, ND] that formed the current definitions and tenets of naturopathy in the late 1980s, states the epistemic conflation in this manner:
"naturopathic medicine is a distinct system [...specifically stating it's a] science [...that is with contents] continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances [as in THAT specific epistemically delineation, SCIENCE!...YET] the techniques of naturopathic medicine include modern and traditional, scientific and empirical [as various epistemic types; a nondelineated, nondistinct BLEND!...naturopathy's] diagnostics and therapeutics are selected from various sources and systems [as in indistinct, assorted, ANYTHING GOES!]."[9]
[But I would like to emphasize, even in all this combining of the various, we are promised "continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances", we are promised an epistemic distinction while concurrently various and combined.]
A Dean of UBCNM [where I went to school], appointed two years into my UBCNM education, stated the mannerism of naturopathic epistemic conflation quite clearly in this welcome letter that appeared around the year 2000:
"[naturopathic medicine is] a system based on the presept[sp.] of Vis Medicatrix Naturae / Only Nature Heals[coded vitalism], a system of health care respectful of, and one which works in concert with, Natural Law [and these are not the 'laws' science establishes, they are 'sectarian beliefs / articles of faith' -- like those of Hering, ayurveda etc.], a system of health care recognizing the synthesis of body, mind and spirit [that is the a posteriori 'synthesized / conflated / integrated / blended with the a priori supernatural'], and a system that embraces [such] holism but yet is grounded in reductionist science [huh! 'it's 100% giraffe...and half elephant!!!'], and practiced in an evidence-based environment [evidence of the supernatural-metaphysical-idealistic and kind, of the a priori is claimed]. In short, it is a system known today as Naturopathic Medicine. Todays[punct.] Naturopathic Physician serves on the front line of health care as a Primary Care physician, practicing scientific medicine."[10]
[If you've missed the implications of these two remarkable and radical statements, to summarize, in a paraphrased manner: "we the naturopathic school of thought decree: the scientific includes the supernatural and the prescientific and the unscientific and the unscienceable and the nonscientific and any of our sectarian knowledge and any of our naturopathic sectarian 'natural laws' {not to be confused with the laws of natural science} and anything we as naturopaths do, and 'the scientific as is recognized by scientists overall'"].
[So again, we get this promise of "scientific" and yet we're told of this "synthesis", this combination, this sourcing from various places. And if you are keeping score, we are highly in the area of irrationality, where the blended is falsely labeled distinct epistemically.]
The easiest language to use when Internet searching for this naturopathic epistemic conflation phenomenon, which is present across the Internet regardless of the search engine employed, is the term "naturopathic medicine blends" or simply the separate words 'naturopathic' or 'naturopathy,' and 'blends' or 'combines'[See Appendix G for examples, click here, >http://ndepistemicconflation.blogspot.com/<].
[Even more specifically: use >Bastyr natural health sciences body mind spirit nature<, (click here per msn.com)].
Though naturopathy does not abide epistemic delineation, it obviously claims overall to be of scientific type, which is an epistemic delineation by definition.
A rudimentary a posteriori epistemic delineation is necessary to merely contemplate the scientific enterprise in kind; stringent empirical / a posteriori epistemic mannerisms are necessary to actually do publishable, peer-acceptable science.
If naturopathy really is scientific, which is of the most stringent a posteriori epistemic type, they wouldn’t be dogmatically holding on to notions that are of the science-discarded a priori [which are metaphysical, idealistic, supernatural, 'solely mentalistic' and kind] type such as vitalism, spiritism, teleology-finalism and kind -- which are scientifically-averse, scientifically-discarded, or of the unscienceable by definition [as in not empirical, not testable, not falsifiable, not evidence-based etc. -- 'articles of faith / a system of beliefs'; or just plain wrong].
The dogma or doctrine of vitalism is one such naturopathic a priori notion.
To intractably preserve such an antique 'inhabiting ghost' view without direct legitimate scientific evidence is not a scientific attitude.
To state that vitalism is scientific and modern, and to take money for it, is to commit a fraud / a misrepresentation -- in my view [to bamboozle].
As the next section will show, such a false representation -- the vitalistic as scientific -- minimally occurs within the naturopathic educational milieu and within naturopathic clinical practice.
The general naturopathic label for their 'purposeful life spirit' [which is a teleological life force] is the Latin 'vis medicatrix naturae,' which translates as "the healing power of nature" [see Merriam-Webster Online, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vis+medicatrix+naturae].
[Note: VFS and teleology-finalism as 'intelligent VFS' are wed, as NDs indicate across the AANP domain. Here's the trunk of the tree. This is the 1989 Rippling River AANP Convention 'ND Sectarian Creed' {notice this is a commitment for licensure}:]
The Federation of Naturopathic Licensing Authorities had written, in 2002
[(click here, >http://www.fnpla.org/philosophy.htm<)(archived here, >http://web.archive.org/web/20021025130843/http://www.fnpla.org/philosophy.htm<);also
per the University of California, San Fransisco {see p.-091 "3.a." for
the specific 'standard of care' directive to treat "vital force," and
p.093 "2.b." for VMN=HPN=VFS} (click here, >http://futurehealth.ucsf.edu/pdf_files/Naturo2.pdf<) (archived here, >http://web.archive.org/web/20060513033743/http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/pdf_files/Naturo2.pdf<)].:
"[naturopathy is] heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world, naturopathic medicine emphasizes the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person [VFS]. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient's vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [VFS…] The healing power of nature. Vis medicatrix naturae [VFS]. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process […] Illness is a purposeful process of the organism [that's the teleological aspect]. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself."
For brevity, I’m going to forgo discussion of naturopathy’s requisite teleology-finalism directly [and just merely say the 'purposeful life force' of naturopathy, its "purposefulness", its 'steering' towards a destination, is that teleological aspect which is usually wed to vitalism historically].
[expressed as "illness is an intelligently guided, purposeful process" {the naturopathic principles state "intelligence" and "purpose;" the Textbook of Natural Medicine 3rd ed. states "design" -- therefore, 'VFS-directed purposeful intelligent design'}{a continuously vital-spirit-directed, 'intelligently selected / designed schema,' an inevitable future goal that then establishes all the conditions that led up to it; by the supernatural VFS}, while all of life science particularly is causalistic {genetic-programmatic for sure, but with the future probabilistic; naturalistic}; see Pizzorno & Murray's "Textbook of Natural Medicine"{3rd ed., Dec. 2005, ISBN 0443069417, p.390, column 1, 2nd full paragraph} which states "vitalists stress the teleological behavior of organisms [...] the goal directedness and design in biologic phenomena." {in the sense of entelechies} {Dover 2005, anyone? - 'supernatural design in biology as not scientific, and disguised religion, an inanity violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment,' per a publicly funded educational setting}], and metaphysical holism [a term I employ to describe naturopathic spiritism, expressed as what I call 'holistic bodymindspirit whatever,' or hard holism / immaterialistic holism {the material plus the extraphysical supernatural} as opposed to materialistic holism / soft holism {matter and its physical properties; which is not supernatural; see this msn.com search here per >naturopathic spirit body mind<, >http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=naturopathic+spirit+body+mind&FORM=MSNH<].
For an overview of these facets, including notations and references, see Appendix A [I’ve included this, after the main text, as Appendix A], wherein I’ve tabulated a gross comparison of "knowledge types and associations."
Here, I’m just going to discuss naturopathy’s vitalism, a 'purposeful life spirit' ideation commonly defined as:
"vitalism, philosophy that living organisms are distinct from nonliving entities by possessing a 'vital force.' This vital force energizes living organisms in a nonphysical, nonchemical manner. Vitalism is an aspect of the philosophy of idealism, which claims that abstract, non-material forms or processes (ideas) precede and give rise to the material. Although vitalists do not deny the value of biochemical investigations of cells or organisms, they believe that such work can never lead to an understanding of the ultimate nature of life because, by definition, the vital force cannot be comprehended by studying chemical and physical phenomena [...] vitalistic medicine, in alternative medicine, generic term for a range of therapies based on the theory that disease is engendered by energy deficiency in the organism as a whole or a dynamic dysfunction in the affected part. Such deficiencies or dysfunctions are regarded as preceding the biochemical effects in which disease becomes manifest and upon which orthodox medicine focuses. Acupuncture, crystal therapy, homeopathy, magnet therapy, and naturopathy are all vitalistic therapies."[11]
So, this is the fundamental premise of naturopathy: that life, health, and disease are due to such an immaterial ‘purposeful vital-force-spirit’ [VFS] underlying and in possession of the material organism.
[Vitalism is not supported by any legitimate scientific evidence, of any kind, and science does not require vitalism as an explanatory mode. Vitalism is simply not necessary in science and not evidence-supported. In fact, it's most accurate to state that science EJECTED vitalism and vitalistic explanation, DECADES AGO -- due to the harm it does toward further inquiry, amongst other reasons. Yet, naturopathy calls itself 'science-based,' evidence-based, modern, the future! Therefore, I regard the naturopathic position that vitalism is scientifically necessary to explain life though 'not ascribed by any scientific evidence but claimed as science anyway' as a violation of the heuristic of parsimony, and thus obviously is a pseudoscience, {which is expressedly fraudulent} in the sense of modern science. Since vitalism is positively asserted without evidence -- 'underlying' {hypostatized} / immaterial /spiritual /metaphysical / cloud-cuckoo-land flapdoodle -- I regard VFS as an article of faith, placing naturopathy squarely in the category of sectarian medicine {systems based upon metaphysical claims, supernatural entities, idealistic / ideological modelings etc.}. When 'supposed science claims' no longer require evidence to be within science -- loosely speaking, 'proof' {minimally} -- science has been annulled as a category {and articles of faith are not, by definition, 'in evidence'}.
To again emphasize just how requisite / central vitalism is to naturopathy, IN PRACTICE:
a) the Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine states in their 2006-2007 catalog {coded}:
“[as a mission, they aim] to be faithful [literally, and article of faith] to the principles of naturopathic medicine [p.007…foremost, overarching] the vis medicatrix naturae [VFS] is discussed in depth as the basis for naturopathic concepts of health and disease and principles of practice, and as the unifying principle that distinguishes naturopathic practice from other forms of medicine and underlies [literally] naturopathic therapeutic practice [p.034].”(click here, >http://www.binm.org/docs/AcademicCalendar.pdf<; archived here, >http://web.archive.org/web/20060504090605/http://binm.org/docs/AcademicCalendar.pdf<),
b) the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine states:"the naturopathic therapeutic order. As developed by Jared Zeff, ND, with Pamela Snider, ND [...2] stimulate the vis."(click here, >http://www.scnm.edu/retired/facultyfocus-1-6-06.php<),
c) Bastyr University states:"the vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature, which is one of naturopathic medicine's core tenets)."(click here, http://www.bastyr.edu/news/news.asp?NewsID=1128)].
The 2005 edition of the Textbook of Natural Medicine [the 3rd. ed., edited by naturopathic luminaries Pizzorno and Murray; ISBN 0443073007] clearly indicates naturopathy's vitalism [and its handmaiden, teleology-finalism].
We're told:
"naturopathy recognizes a vital force -- vis medicatrix naturae or healing power of nature [notice the direct equation, VFS = VMN = HPN; 'the vis' et al] -- that is present in all living things, including the human body. For naturopaths, this vital force is ultimately responsible for healing [...] this spirit of vitalism [literally...] naturopathic medicine has consistently aligned itself with the vitalistic side [...of] an ongoing debate [a false dichotomy, as if there is a legitimate scientific debate about this -- like stating there's a controversy in biology concerning the fact of evolution, in chemistry over the existence of atoms, or in physics over the use of measurements, or in geology concerning the approximate age of the Earth -- there isn't] between 'vitalistic' and 'mechanistic' approaches to life and health [there isn't a debate WITHIN science...with vitalism as] 'functional medicine' [a naturo. alias...] views disease as part of something that is purposeful and is proceeding actively in accordance with some design [teleology-finalism...] the concept of function must be viewed in the same category as the concepts of 'purpose' and 'design' [...] telos (end purpose) [...] functional practitioners recognize purpose and design in physiologic events [...per] a universal, supraindividual set of principles [...] the universal, patterned matrix of events is infinite and cannot be fully understood [...] the patterned matrix of universal events [...] the functional medicine emphasis on purpose and design is closely related to this recognition of vital force in naturopathy [p.014; per their entelechy as the driving intelligence...] philosophy of natural medicine [...] a human being has an intrinsic ability to 'self-right' -- vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature). This is the keystone of a philosophy [vitalism, animism, spiritism, teleology-finalism etc.] that has been held for thousands of years by naturally oriented physicians (see chapter 6) [...] the body can maintain health and reestablish a healthy state after disease by virtue of its inherent vitality. This is part of the definition of a homeostatic mechanism [p.094...] the vis medicatrix naturae. The healing process described as vis medicatrix naturae [...] self-generated healing capacity [...] a patient's internal homeostatic mechanism [...] the body has two internal forces to maintain homeostasis: a lower drive and a higher drive. The lower drive is the inherent internal healing mechanism, the vital force [...] the higher drive is the power of the mind [mentalism p.095...] Hahnemann [...] asserted that the cause of disease could not be known [this is a great example of how vitalism stops scientific inquiry!; as mysticism...] the nature of disease is dynamic and could not be defined by isolating processes, [or] grasping for an explanation [resorting to a 'god of the gaps' mysticism...] the integrity and complexity of organization of the organism as a whole [...] he described as [...] dynamic, meaning in accordance with the animating principle of life, which is the underlying [idealistic; invisible; metaphysical-hypostatized!] energetic pattern to which matter conforms [...] that individual's vital response [...] vitalism. Disease, in the homeopathic model, is thought to arise from inherent or developed weaknesses in the patient's defense mechanisms [VFS, coded], creating a susceptibility to 'morbidific influences' [...] this viewpoint is considered 'vitalistic' [...as opposed to] the current dominant medical system [which] is influenced by the causalistic and allopathic paradigms [p.389: allopathy is a false label; causalism is in opposition to teleology-finalism: causalism roughly is that events occur due to what led up to them, and allows for mechanistic interpretation; teleology-finalism says that events are inevitably 'sucked' towards a predetermined end-state, in a 'meant to be' sense, wherein the future determines the conditions that lead up to it, and is non-mechanistic and instead mystical -- considered a fallacy of reasoning, a false causality; and see note 34 regarding the naturopathic 'allopathy slur'...] vitalists stress the teleological behavior of organisms (i.e. the goal directedness and design in biological phenomena) [vitalism and teleology-finalism are wed...] disease is not accidental [strawman, what's being insinuated is that preconditions aren't explanatory enough; instead, biology is noncausally purpose-filled] but is rather the effort of the organism to ward off deeper or more internal disorganization. It is the natural wisdom of the body, the vis medicatrix naturae, or using current scientific terminology, the tendency for the body to maintain homeostasis [VFS as VMN as homeostasis{science-language camouflage}...] homeopathy [...] stimulates the body's inherent defense and self-regulatory mechanisms [the VFS, coded...the] vital intracellular and extracellular regulatory functions [p.390...] philosophy of naturopathic medicine [...] the modern [naturopathic] profession has articulated a general statement of naturopathic principles that expand on vis medicatrix naturae [per Rippling River 1989; the profession's premises are centered upon VMN=HPN=VFS...] naturopathic medicine has always identified the Latin expression vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature) as its philosophical linchpin [p.079...] the foundations of naturopathic medical philosophy are found in vitalism [p.080 -- incontrovertibly]."[12]
This VFS is intractably posited[dogma; spiritism and teleology-finalism, too], a compulsory conviction [an oath is taken to it to graduate and be licensed], and utmost in importance in terms of naturopathic therapeutics.
[e.g. ‘energy medicine’; see Appendix A for an explanation of this VFS terminological conglomeration as pertains particularly to naturopathic syncretic conflation; also see Appendix A as concerns one immediate religious implication of naturopathy’s universe-pervasive, impersonal VFS supernaturalism – a religiosity that has attributes which include animatism, animism, and pantheism].
You can find this vitalism directly stated across the entire profession, from the naturopathic academic institutions to the clinicians they produce.
[See Appendix B, click here, >http://thevitalismofnaturopathy.blogspot.com/<].
Practitioners can state:
"The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself."[13]
"The body has more innate healing power than all medicine in history. We call this power the life force, and foremost, we cultivate its restorative processes [...] symptoms are an expression of the life force, not the cause of illness. Rather than treat the symptom[the worldly physical, a posteriori], we discover the [metaphysical] cause, and direct our healing accordingly [at the otherworldly, metaphysical, idealistic, supernatural, a priori]."[14]
VFS is not optional within naturopathy; this is not a personal choice and private belief, it IS the naturopathic.
[a required belief as an 'article of faith'; and clinically, the central naturopathic 'standard of care'].
Vitalism and like kind falsely stated as science is built into their canonical creed[see Appendix D, some example links below], oath [see Appendix E, some example links below], and standard of clinical practice known as the "therapeutic order" [see Appendix F, some example links below].
UBCNM has stated naturopathic vitalism [and teleology-finalism, the two concepts are wed] as:
"Illiness[sp.] is a purposeful [teleology-finalism] process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complimentary to and synergistic with this healing process. The physician's actions can support or antagonize the actions of he[sp.] viz[sp.] medicatrix naturae. Therefore, methods designed to supress[sp.] symptoms without removing underlying causes [of the a priori] are considered harmful and are avoided or minimized."[15]
[also, click here, >http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_Prihtm.htm<; for the archive.org history of this page, click here, >http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_Prihtm.htm<].
And one is just as likely to find vitalism coded[see Appendix J - 'Coded VFS,' click here, >http://codedvfsbynaturo.blogspot.com/<].
Such coding is a phenomenon one encounters when studying naturopathy, what I call "the supernatural ideology that dare not speak its name."
One of the AANP schools, the Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine (BINM), employs these euphemisms:
"the body's inherent healing abilities […] the body's self-healing abilities […] the natural healing power […] the natural self-healing process."[16]
[This Canada school obviously isn't being as transparent or as accurate as they should be with their descriptors.].
In their description of naturopathy, BIMN doesn’t mention in name the vitalism which is actually being expressed per the transparent "life force," "vital force," or "vitality"[terminology].
Many AANP practitioners are prone to forgo such direct description as well.
This is the current language of a current Connecticut practitioner I knew from my UBCNM student experience:
"the healing power of nature: There is an innate ability for the body to heal itself. Naturopathic doctors remove obstacles to this process."[17]
In this description, he never mentions the vitalism which is actually being expressed per the transparent "life force," "vital force," or "vitality"[terminology].
More recently, vitalism is coded in the just recently published AANP autoendorsement by Dunne et al. (2005) [which this thesis attempts to enlighten], since Dunne et al. doesn’t state VFS in direct and honest terms anywhere.
I haven’t found in the piece’s primary text the terms "vital force" or "life force," though there is such words as "lifestyle," "life-threatening," and "quality of life."
Instead, the authors state:
"the premise [...that] naturopathic medicine is based upon [...is that there are] inherent organizing forces underlying known physiologic processes[that is, the 'pre-material idealistic,' the 'underlying invisible,' determining the 'material physicalistic' 'apparent'...per] the vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature."[see 1]
Such coding of vitalism is one example of the naturopathic habit of dissembling [that is, disguising-- vitalism specifically].
Vitalism, and such kind, has been exceptionally PERMANENTLY scientifically discarded / UNEQUIVOCALLY scientifically demolished / refuted / rejected / ejected / DISQUALIFIED
[see Appendix C. 'The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism' (click here, >http://novfsinscience.blogspot.com/<)],
and, vitalism and such kind
[vitalism, spiritism, teleology-finalism etc.]
are ANTITHETICAL to legitimate science
[enough overemphasis already!].
[As Ernst Mayr wrote, 22 years ago, in "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance"(1985) {ISBN 0674364465}: "It is fair to say that for biologists vitalism has been a dead issue for more than fifty years [so make that 72...] all biologists are thorough-going 'materialists' in the sense that they recognize no supernatural or immaterial forces, but only such that are physico-chemical [p.052...for] biology today [...] virtually all the great controversies of former centuries have been resolved. Vitalism in all of its forms has been totally refuted and has had no serious adherency for several generations [p.131...] by eliminating all interpretations that signaled an implicit conflict with physico-chemical explanations (namely, those theories that were vitalistic or teleological [e.g.: VFS, finalism]), evolutionary biology become far more respectable [p.576]"].
[Posing metaphysical / supernatural / 'of the idealistic' / 'without evidence' / nonparsimonious models / claims {vitalism, spiritism, teleology-finalism and kind} as 'modern scientific,' science, 'science-based' fact is exceptionally ANACHRONISTIC {of a different historical era!!!; as in artifact} and in my view a DECEPTION {as in untruth}. While, explicitly, naturopathy claims that vitalism and spiritism are "science-based," the branch of science that deals with 'the living,' biology {the most populated main-branch of science} explicitly states that vitalism, the supernatural, and the finalistic are "discredited." Who are you going to believe? A small cluster of 'pseudomedical sectarians' who don't distinguish between 'that in evidence' and 'that not in evidence' {epistemic conflators; science annihilators; pseudoscientists}, or the branch of modern science that rigorously specializes in 'the study of life'?].
[Vitalism, particularly, in terms of modern thought in general {which I believe rationally confers greater confidence upon scientifically-derived and -substantiated claims}, according to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998), "now has no credibility" {because it has neither empirical support / evidence, nor explanatory or predictive value / merit} (click here, >http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/~bill/teaching/philbio/vitalism.htm<)].[Wikipedia's "Vitalism" entry, similarly, states {per 10-20-06}: "Bechtel and Williamson, state that 'vitalism now has no credibility' because it is often viewed as unfalsifiable, and 'therefore a pernicious metaphysical doctrine.'" {Bechtel W, Richardson RC (1998). Vitalism. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge} (click here, >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism<)].[Blackwell's "A Companion to Epistemology" (ISBN 0631192581;1994) states: "the history of human thought about the nature of the external world is littered with what are now seen (with the benefit of hindsight) to be egregious errors -- the four element theory, phlogiston, the crystal spheres, vitalism, and so on [p.446]."[It should be duly noted that 'vitalism, spiritism, teleology-finalism and kind' {essentially: the metaphysical / supernatural / idealistic and such; naturopathy's doctrines} claimed as science, science-based, scientific, a foundation for a 'branch of medical science' etc. by naturopathy / naturopathic medicine -- obviously without a shred of legitimate evidence {there is nothing of actual scientific evidence for them-- or the supernatural overall -- but piles of rejection} -- amounts to no longer requiring rigorously derived empirical evidence or appropriate peer review to be scientific, which is absolutely absurd.].
For instance, in "Planet Medicine: Origins" (2001; ISBN 1556433697), author R. Grossinger admits
[as part of his argument in favor of vitalistic medicine and an unlimiting of the explanatory boundaries of science!]:
"there is perhaps no more succinct way to define vitalism than to say that it is everything which modern science is not [p.234]."
I cannot imagine any way of successfully arguing vitalism's scientific authenticity[it has been well-buried in the cemetery of refuted and discarded scientific hypotheses for more than seventy years] without appearing ridiculous [or intellectually dishonest; or naive; or absurd; or stupid] -- this is how exceptionally unlimited science is within naturopathy:
the preponderantly and absurdly nonscientific is endorsed by naturopathy as scientific, as science-based, as science, as a foundation for a "branch of medical science."
Such a defense of blatantly 'scientifically rejected knowledge and explanation' would resemble arguing that 'Zeus throwing lightening bolts' is a legitimate, modern, scientific explanation and a science-based explanation for lightening; or explaining that fire is the presence of phlogiston.
Comparatively, the undergraduate prerequisite degree and coursework -- and by extension the intellect that is expected as a result, that is to be brought to the table to enter an in-residence, accredited naturopathy school – are exceedingly scrupulous in thought quality mannerism and mainstream preponderant content as regards science
[see 'note on [8]' below for a great example concerning just how simply absurdly WRONG-HEADED naturopathy is in terms of BASIC SCIENCE at their highest echelons, their central textbook -- ROTFLMAO, really].
Naturopathy’s dogmatic, radical deviance and nonsense without scientific justification, in the undergraduate realm alone, would be exceptionally unacceptable scholarship.
In my view, from my experience, the naturopathic claim that ‘vitalism [and teleology-finalism, spiritism, metaphysicalism and kind] is scientific anyway’ serves to show that naturopathic education is an extremely sophisticated indoctrination[and illuminates a certain 'pigheadedness' on their part] and abusive situation.
I can anticipate naturopathy's defense: "we thought you knew; it’s not our fault that you think we’re expressing ourselves in naturalistic terms and not supernaturalistic terms; our science is different; we haven’t misled you, society may delineate those two knowledge kinds, the natural and the supernatural, but we see nothing wrong in our self descriptions because we don’t delineate those epistemic types; our paradigm is different; any language will do, in our view; [and of course] why all this thinking?; [and] we’re alternative, after all.
"This would illustrate -- and I read a lot of primary naturopathic sources monthly, so such paraphrased argumentation is not an exceptional exaggeration of their style, I feel -- naturopathic obscurantism and a profession’s attempts to be responsibility-immune through special pleading.
This has been Part One of this two-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 006.
In Part Two, I will revisit what I'd written in 2006 regarding naturopathy's science categorical claim, and then revisit my 2006 conclusion.
And finally, I'll answer my overarching question for this episode.
.
[1]Dunne
N, Benda W, Kim L, Mittman P, Barrett R, Snider P, Pizzorno J.
Naturopathic medicine: what can patients expect? J Fam Pract. 2005
Dec;54(12):1067-72.
.
[2]Atwood
KC 4th. Naturopathy: a critical appraisal. MedGenMed. 2003 Dec
30;5(4):39; Atwood KC 4th. Naturopathy, pseudoscience, and medicine:
myths and fallacies vs truth. MedGenMed. 2004 Mar 25;6(1):33.
.
[3]The
Alliance for the State Licensing of Naturopathic Physicians. The
Alliance Legislative Workbook. Mail order schools. Available at:
>http://web.archive.org/web/19981206123953/www.teleport.com/~aanp/alliance/et7.html<.
Accessed January 18, 2006.
.
[4]Wikipedia,
the Free Encyclopedia. Available at:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#Definition_of_knowledge<.
Accessed January 18, 2006.
.
[5]Dorland's
Illustrated Medical Dictionary (2003). Available at:
>http://0-www.xreferplus.com.csulib.ctstateu.edu/entry/4167469<.
Accessed January 16, 2006.
.
[6]Chambers
21st Century Dictionary (2001). Available at:
>http://0-www.xreferplus.com.csulib.ctstateu.edu/entry/1201206<.
Accessed January 16, 2006.
.
[7]A
Dictionary of Philosophy, Macmillan (2002). Available at:
>http://0-www.xreferplus.com.csulib.ctstateu.edu/entry/1426204<.
Accessed January 16, 2006.
.
[8]Abraham
Flexner's View of Homeopathic Schools: An Excerpt from the Flexner
Report (1910). Available at:
>http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/flexner.html<
. Accessed January 16, 2006.
.
Notes
on [8]: To illustrate, here's a perfect example of what I call the
use of "science as the sword of sectarianism" from the
naturopathic crowd, per pseudoscience at their highest echelons. I'll
later indicate that the UBCNM statement that ayurveda is a "natural
science" stands as a perfect 'microcosmic' example of
naturopathic pseudoscience: an ancient world religion's body of
knowledge (metaphysical, idealistic, supernatural, pantheistic etc.)
regarding 'healing practices' isn't modern natural science or en
masse
scientific medicine. What I entail now shares the status of being
located at the zenith of the naturopathic pseudoscience hierarchy,
currently in my mind [and I'm not crazy enough to make something as
crazy as this up; the author calls this a "less dramatic
argument" supporting vitalism, but I call it a dramatically
ignorant example]: in the 3rd edition of the "Textbook of
Natural Medicine"(2005) by Pizzorno and Murray -- the very same
Pizzorno who states that he is "one of the world's leading
authorities on science-based natural medicine," at here
>http://www.bastyr.edu/about/pizzorno/default.asp<;
a book he co-edited that Bastyr University which he co-founded
describes as "the most thoroughly researched and carefully
referenced text on natural medicine" here,
>http://www.bastyr.edu/bookstore/order/books.asp?item=%7B038A9AFB-F429-48A1-AC82-9EB320960D60%7D&catid=24<
-- states that there is a "problem of entropy" per p.
81-82, that vitalism is justified because evolution and 'the
evolution of life and therefore the living in general' defies the
second law of thermodynamics per an "antientropic quality"
and an "'organizing force' that goes beyond what is possible
from mere chemistry," and thus what is alive is outside the
universal natural laws of science, justifying vitalism, which has
generically been defined as 'outside the laws governing
physiochemistry.'
.
This
is wrong [as in 'wrong uniform, wrong equipment, wrong ball field,
wrong sport' -- 'swaggering ignorance']: life, per on Earth, which is
the only kind of life we know of, developed and is still developing
within an OPEN physical system, per solar radiation minimally and the
landfall of extraterrestrial material additionally, and the second
law of thermodynamics is predicated on systems which are physically
CLOSED:
.
a)
see here, >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html<,
which states -- in the context of the Creationist anti-evolution
argument similarly arguing that life defies this physical law [in the
Creationists' failed attempts to argue against the scientific
veracity of evolution]:
.
"creationists
[and now naturopathy!] thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that
things invariably progress from order to disorder [...except, they
don't seem to admit or realize] life is not a closed system [...and]
not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder
is common in nonliving systems [!...with no such events requiring] an
intelligent program to achieve that order [an entelechy,
essentially...so] if order from disorder is supposed to violate the
2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it[order from disorder] ubiquitous
in nature? [...such as] snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes,
stalactites, graded river beds, and lightening [all inanimate...whose
occurrence] doesn't violate any physical laws [...and that overall
such a tack indicates] misconception[s] about evolution as well as
about thermodynamics";
.
b)
also, Davies, P. states {in "Debating Design: From Darwin to
DNA"(2004)(ISBN 0521829496)}:
.
"today,
we know that there is nothing anti-thermodynamic about life [...]
astronomer Arthur Eddington felt moved to write 'if your [proposed]
theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can
give you no hope: there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation' [p.194]";
.
c)
also, Shermer, M. states in "Why People Believe Weird
Things"(2002)(ISBN 0805070893):
.
"evolution
no more breaks the second law of thermodynamics than one breaks the
law of gravity by jumping up [...since] the earth is not strictly a
closed system, life may evolve without violating [such] natural laws
[p.150]";
.
d)
also, see here,
>http://www.justscience.org.uk/wiki/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=15<:
data-blogger-escaped-p="">
.
"IDist:
Evolution is impossible because the second law says order always
decreases. Evolutionist: That is nonsense, there are many systems
where order increases, eg snowflakes. IDist: You are talking about
order, I was talking about complexity. They are two entirely
different thing. Evolution: Of course they are. For one thing, the
second law is about order, and has nothing to do with complexity!"];
.
note:
this TNM 3rd ed. chapter is also stating that evolution is a
teleological vitalistic spiritistic process, while the scientific
perspective states that evolution is simply causalistic and
physicalistic] {the author of the TNM chapter states naturopathy's
view on life "should not be mistaken as a metaphysical concept
[I disagree, essentially due to the absence of actual empirical data
to indicate the necessity of their claims...and that per] modern
vitalism [...] there is no conflict with the findings of biomedical
science" yet naturopathy is HUGELY IN CONFLICT with modern
science ESPECIALLY in terms of biology} {isn't it funny how these big
"holistic" thinkers are willing to evaporate
philosophically into the metaphysical ether in the blink of an eye,
and yet fail to look a few miles above the surface of the Earth to
notice what's physically raining down on us all the time - solar
energy, and whatever debris Earth's gravity traps! Quite a narrow
[sectarian!; myopic!], selective microcosm they live in, overall --
peering through their dogma tinted glasses} [if the naturopathic
'evolution supports vitalism' position were so obviously true, why do
evolutionary biologists Mayr and Dawkins exclude vitalism from
biological science, here?;
.
[9]AANP
Definition of Naturopathic Medicine Adopted November 1, 1989, Ripping
River Convention. Available at:
>http://web.archive.org/web/20060117225435/http:/www.jaredzeff.com/index.php?pr=Definition<.
Accessed January 18, 2006.
.
[10]The
University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine. Dean’s
welcome. Available at:
>http://web.archive.org/web/20010701211403/http:/www.bridgeport.edu/naturopathy/desc/dean.htm<.
Accessed January 18, 2006. [The noted spelling and punctuation errors
are from the source document].
.
[11]Allen,
Garland E. "Vitalism," and [no author attributed]
"Vitalistic Medicine." Microsoft Encarta 2006 [DVD].
Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2005. . [11a]Murray, M.T.
Pizzorno, J.E. (NDs, editors) The Textbook of Natural Medicine.
Churchill Livingstone. 2005. ISBN 0443073007.
.
[12]Naturopathic
Medicine. Available at: >http://www.drbonniemarsh.com/page6.html<.
Accessed January 18, 2006.
.
[13]Natural
Medical Care. Available at:
>http://www.naturalmedicalcare.com/main/about/index.php< .
Accessed January 18, 2006.
.
[14]The
University of Bridgeport. Six guiding principles. First do no harm.
Viz primum no nocere. Available at:
>http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_Prithree.htm<. Accessed
January 18, 2006. [The noted spelling errors are from the source
document].
.
[15]The
Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine. Naturopathic medical
training. Available at:
>http://www.binm.org/Naturopathic_Medicine.html<. Accessed
January 18, 2006.
.
[16]Natural
Medicine and Wellness Center. Natural Pathways to Health, Michael
Armentano, ND. Available at:
>http://drarmentano.com/naturopathic.htm<. Accessed January 18,
2006.
.
[17]The
Alliance for the State Licensing of Naturopathic Physicians. The
Alliance Legislative Workbook. Main. Available at:
>http://web.archive.org/web/19981206034442/http:/www.teleport.com/~aanp/alliance/main.html<.
Accessed January 18, 2006. [The members of the Alliance: "the
AANP, Bastyr University, National College of Naturopathic Medicine
and the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health
Sciences"].
"epistemology, from the Greek words episteme (knowledge) and logos (word/speech) is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin and scope of knowledge [...] a priori knowledge is knowledge gained or justified by reason alone [which I will call the nonsensous], without the direct or indirect influence of any particular experience (here, experience usually means observation of the world through sense perception [the sensuous...] a posteriori knowledge is any other sort of knowledge; that is, knowledge the attainment or justification of which requires reference to experience. This is also called empirical knowledge."[4]
"Epistemology -- the science of the methods and validity of knowledge."[5]
"Epistemics
"Epistemics -- a word coined in Edinburgh University in 1969 to label a new school dedicated to the scientific, as opposed to the philosophical, study of knowledge."[7]
It is not the purpose of this paper to argue the finer points of philosophy [or the finer demarcation issues as regards science].
I will employ the philosophical term ‘epistemic type’ to indicate that it is standard practice to properly and stringently delineate knowledge kind, en masse.
Information is not all the same:
that which is presupposed without evidence and unchanging is not that which is derived from sensuous experience and tentative.
Ramp both areas up in intensity and it is commonly stated that the supernatural and the ‘philosophical- metaphysical-idealistic’ as I will term it, as contrasted with the scientifically rigorous and practical, are literally worlds apart epistemically:
the former are a priori in kind, as matters and articles of faith ["belief that is not based on proof,"
Such delineation is not obscure:
the legal system, particularly as pertains to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and its ‘Establishment Clause’ separating Church and State, obviously must acknowledge and employ such a knowledge type difference, and similarly, so does modern scientific medicine.
Modern scientific medicine developed particularly because sectarian "allopathy surrendered" to a non-sectarian a posteriori view which, by definition, maintains "no presupposition that is not common to it with all the natural sciences, with all logical thinking."[see 8]
As a necessary epistemic characteristic, "scientific medicine [...] brushes aside all historic dogma."[see 8]
On the other hand, the a priori or sectarianistic in knowledge type [usually, because what's being stated is a specific kind of supernaturality view / an 'articles of faith' set -- i.e. naturo.s vitalism, spiritism, spiritual development, therapeutic spiritualism, teleology-finalism, holistic 'bodymindspirit whatever' etc.] -- prescientific "medical sectarians" like naturopaths and kind, by definition -- share the mannerism of:
"[beginning with the] mind made up [...maintaining] a finished and supposedly adequate dogma or principle [...yet, and still] to plead in advance a principle couched in pseudo-scientific language or of extra-scientific character is to violate scientific quality."[8]
What I will say about naturopathic epistemic sensitivity is simply that they do not abide epistemic delineation.
The blending of epistemic type is at the heart of their dogmatic ‘philosophy,’ while simultaneously the blended knowledge is deliberately and falsely labeled scientific [and nonsectarian].
The remainder of this section will entail this conflation or blending [or integrating] of knowledge type fallacy that I call the naturopathic “wine plus mud equals wine” claim, or their “pile apples and oranges together and say it’s a pile of one kind of fruit” mannerism.
Part II.B. Naturopathic epistemic conflation:
[aka ‘naturopathy blends, naturopathy combines’ – or, ‘all fruit is one fruit, and muddy wine is pure wine’ -- and quite thoroughly, in their view, 'the scientific and the supernatural are the same type of knowledge -- scientific'].
One AANP type ND [Jared Zeff, ND], who co-chaired the AANP committee [with Pamela Snider, ND] that formed the current definitions and tenets of naturopathy in the late 1980s, states the epistemic conflation in this manner:
"naturopathic medicine is a distinct system [...specifically stating it's a] science [...that is with contents] continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances [as in THAT specific epistemically delineation, SCIENCE!...YET] the techniques of naturopathic medicine include modern and traditional, scientific and empirical [as various epistemic types; a nondelineated, nondistinct BLEND!...naturopathy's] diagnostics and therapeutics are selected from various sources and systems [as in indistinct, assorted, ANYTHING GOES!]."[9]
[But I would like to emphasize, even in all this combining of the various, we are promised "continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances", we are promised an epistemic distinction while concurrently various and combined.]
A Dean of UBCNM [where I went to school], appointed two years into my UBCNM education, stated the mannerism of naturopathic epistemic conflation quite clearly in this welcome letter that appeared around the year 2000:
"[naturopathic medicine is] a system based on the presept[sp.] of Vis Medicatrix Naturae / Only Nature Heals
[So again, we get this promise of "scientific" and yet we're told of this "synthesis", this combination, this sourcing from various places. And if you are keeping score, we are highly in the area of irrationality, where the blended is falsely labeled distinct epistemically.]
The easiest language to use when Internet searching for this naturopathic epistemic conflation phenomenon, which is present across the Internet regardless of the search engine employed, is the term "naturopathic medicine blends" or simply the separate words 'naturopathic' or 'naturopathy,' and 'blends' or 'combines'
Though naturopathy does not abide epistemic delineation, it obviously claims overall to be of scientific type, which is an epistemic delineation by definition.
A rudimentary a posteriori epistemic delineation is necessary to merely contemplate the scientific enterprise in kind; stringent empirical / a posteriori epistemic mannerisms are necessary to actually do publishable, peer-acceptable science.
If naturopathy really is scientific, which is of the most stringent a posteriori epistemic type, they wouldn’t be dogmatically holding on to notions that are of the science-discarded a priori [which are metaphysical, idealistic, supernatural, 'solely mentalistic' and kind] type such as vitalism, spiritism, teleology-finalism and kind -- which are scientifically-averse, scientifically-discarded, or of the unscienceable by definition [as in not empirical, not testable, not falsifiable, not evidence-based etc. -- 'articles of faith / a system of beliefs'; or just plain wrong].
The dogma or doctrine of vitalism is one such naturopathic a priori notion.
To intractably preserve such an antique 'inhabiting ghost' view without direct legitimate scientific evidence is not a scientific attitude.
To state that vitalism is scientific and modern, and to take money for it, is to commit a fraud / a misrepresentation -- in my view [to bamboozle].
As the next section will show, such a false representation -- the vitalistic as scientific -- minimally occurs within the naturopathic educational milieu and within naturopathic clinical practice.
Part III. The dogma and doctrine of vitalism:
The general naturopathic label for their 'purposeful life spirit' [which is a teleological life force] is the Latin 'vis medicatrix naturae,' which translates as "the healing power of nature"
The Federation of Naturopathic Licensing Authorities had written, in 2002
"[naturopathy is] heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world, naturopathic medicine emphasizes the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person [VFS]. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient's vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [VFS…] The healing power of nature. Vis medicatrix naturae [VFS]. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process […] Illness is a purposeful process of the organism [that's the teleological aspect]. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself."
For brevity, I’m going to forgo discussion of naturopathy’s requisite teleology-finalism directly [and just merely say the 'purposeful life force' of naturopathy, its "purposefulness", its 'steering' towards a destination, is that teleological aspect which is usually wed to vitalism historically].
Here, I’m just going to discuss naturopathy’s vitalism, a 'purposeful life spirit' ideation commonly defined as:
"vitalism, philosophy that living organisms are distinct from nonliving entities by possessing a 'vital force.' This vital force energizes living organisms in a nonphysical, nonchemical manner. Vitalism is an aspect of the philosophy of idealism, which claims that abstract, non-material forms or processes (ideas) precede and give rise to the material. Although vitalists do not deny the value of biochemical investigations of cells or organisms, they believe that such work can never lead to an understanding of the ultimate nature of life because, by definition, the vital force cannot be comprehended by studying chemical and physical phenomena [...] vitalistic medicine, in alternative medicine, generic term for a range of therapies based on the theory that disease is engendered by energy deficiency in the organism as a whole or a dynamic dysfunction in the affected part. Such deficiencies or dysfunctions are regarded as preceding the biochemical effects in which disease becomes manifest and upon which orthodox medicine focuses. Acupuncture, crystal therapy, homeopathy, magnet therapy, and naturopathy are all vitalistic therapies."[11]
So, this is the fundamental premise of naturopathy: that life, health, and disease are due to such an immaterial ‘purposeful vital-force-spirit’ [VFS] underlying and in possession of the material organism.
The 2005 edition of the Textbook of Natural Medicine [the 3rd. ed., edited by naturopathic luminaries Pizzorno and Murray; ISBN 0443073007] clearly indicates naturopathy's vitalism [and its handmaiden, teleology-finalism].
We're told:
"naturopathy recognizes a vital force -- vis medicatrix naturae or healing power of nature [notice the direct equation, VFS = VMN = HPN; 'the vis' et al] -- that is present in all living things, including the human body. For naturopaths, this vital force is ultimately responsible for healing [...] this spirit of vitalism [literally...] naturopathic medicine has consistently aligned itself with the vitalistic side [...of] an ongoing debate [a false dichotomy, as if there is a legitimate scientific debate about this -- like stating there's a controversy in biology concerning the fact of evolution, in chemistry over the existence of atoms, or in physics over the use of measurements, or in geology concerning the approximate age of the Earth -- there isn't] between 'vitalistic' and 'mechanistic' approaches to life and health [there isn't a debate WITHIN science...with vitalism as] 'functional medicine' [a naturo. alias...] views disease as part of something that is purposeful and is proceeding actively in accordance with some design [teleology-finalism...] the concept of function must be viewed in the same category as the concepts of 'purpose' and 'design' [...] telos (end purpose) [...] functional practitioners recognize purpose and design in physiologic events [...per] a universal, supraindividual set of principles [...] the universal, patterned matrix of events is infinite and cannot be fully understood [...] the patterned matrix of universal events [...] the functional medicine emphasis on purpose and design is closely related to this recognition of vital force in naturopathy [p.014; per their entelechy as the driving intelligence...] philosophy of natural medicine [...] a human being has an intrinsic ability to 'self-right' -- vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature). This is the keystone of a philosophy [vitalism, animism, spiritism, teleology-finalism etc.] that has been held for thousands of years by naturally oriented physicians (see chapter 6) [...] the body can maintain health and reestablish a healthy state after disease by virtue of its inherent vitality. This is part of the definition of a homeostatic mechanism [p.094...] the vis medicatrix naturae. The healing process described as vis medicatrix naturae [...] self-generated healing capacity [...] a patient's internal homeostatic mechanism [...] the body has two internal forces to maintain homeostasis: a lower drive and a higher drive. The lower drive is the inherent internal healing mechanism, the vital force [...] the higher drive is the power of the mind [mentalism p.095...] Hahnemann [...] asserted that the cause of disease could not be known [this is a great example of how vitalism stops scientific inquiry!; as mysticism...] the nature of disease is dynamic and could not be defined by isolating processes, [or] grasping for an explanation [resorting to a 'god of the gaps' mysticism...] the integrity and complexity of organization of the organism as a whole [...] he described as [...] dynamic, meaning in accordance with the animating principle of life, which is the underlying [idealistic; invisible; metaphysical-hypostatized!] energetic pattern to which matter conforms [...] that individual's vital response [...] vitalism. Disease, in the homeopathic model, is thought to arise from inherent or developed weaknesses in the patient's defense mechanisms [VFS, coded], creating a susceptibility to 'morbidific influences' [...] this viewpoint is considered 'vitalistic' [...as opposed to] the current dominant medical system [which] is influenced by the causalistic and allopathic paradigms [p.389: allopathy is a false label; causalism is in opposition to teleology-finalism: causalism roughly is that events occur due to what led up to them, and allows for mechanistic interpretation; teleology-finalism says that events are inevitably 'sucked' towards a predetermined end-state, in a 'meant to be' sense, wherein the future determines the conditions that lead up to it, and is non-mechanistic and instead mystical -- considered a fallacy of reasoning, a false causality; and see note 34 regarding the naturopathic 'allopathy slur'...] vitalists stress the teleological behavior of organisms (i.e. the goal directedness and design in biological phenomena) [vitalism and teleology-finalism are wed...] disease is not accidental [strawman, what's being insinuated is that preconditions aren't explanatory enough; instead, biology is noncausally purpose-filled] but is rather the effort of the organism to ward off deeper or more internal disorganization. It is the natural wisdom of the body, the vis medicatrix naturae, or using current scientific terminology, the tendency for the body to maintain homeostasis [VFS as VMN as homeostasis{science-language camouflage}...] homeopathy [...] stimulates the body's inherent defense and self-regulatory mechanisms [the VFS, coded...the] vital intracellular and extracellular regulatory functions [p.390...] philosophy of naturopathic medicine [...] the modern [naturopathic] profession has articulated a general statement of naturopathic principles that expand on vis medicatrix naturae [per Rippling River 1989; the profession's premises are centered upon VMN=HPN=VFS...] naturopathic medicine has always identified the Latin expression vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature) as its philosophical linchpin [p.079...] the foundations of naturopathic medical philosophy are found in vitalism [p.080 -- incontrovertibly]."[12]
This VFS is intractably posited
You can find this vitalism directly stated across the entire profession, from the naturopathic academic institutions to the clinicians they produce.
Practitioners can state:
"The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself."[13]
"The body has more innate healing power than all medicine in history. We call this power the life force, and foremost, we cultivate its restorative processes [...] symptoms are an expression of the life force, not the cause of illness. Rather than treat the symptom
VFS is not optional within naturopathy; this is not a personal choice and private belief, it IS the naturopathic.
Vitalism and like kind falsely stated as science is built into their canonical creed
UBCNM has stated naturopathic vitalism
"Illiness[sp.] is a purposeful
And one is just as likely to find vitalism coded
Such coding is a phenomenon one encounters when studying naturopathy, what I call "the supernatural ideology that dare not speak its name."
One of the AANP schools, the Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine (BINM), employs these euphemisms:
"the body's inherent healing abilities […] the body's self-healing abilities […] the natural healing power […] the natural self-healing process."[16]
In their description of naturopathy, BIMN doesn’t mention in name the vitalism which is actually being expressed per the transparent "life force," "vital force," or "vitality"
Many AANP practitioners are prone to forgo such direct description as well.
This is the current language of a current Connecticut practitioner I knew from my UBCNM student experience:
"the healing power of nature: There is an innate ability for the body to heal itself. Naturopathic doctors remove obstacles to this process."[17]
In this description, he never mentions the vitalism which is actually being expressed per the transparent "life force," "vital force," or "vitality"
More recently, vitalism is coded in the just recently published AANP autoendorsement by Dunne et al. (2005) [which this thesis attempts to enlighten], since Dunne et al. doesn’t state VFS in direct and honest terms anywhere.
I haven’t found in the piece’s primary text the terms "vital force" or "life force," though there is such words as "lifestyle," "life-threatening," and "quality of life."
Instead, the authors state:
"the premise [...that] naturopathic medicine is based upon [...is that there are] inherent organizing forces underlying known physiologic processes
Such coding of vitalism is one example of the naturopathic habit of dissembling [that is, disguising
Vitalism, and such kind, has been exceptionally PERMANENTLY scientifically discarded / UNEQUIVOCALLY scientifically demolished / refuted / rejected / ejected / DISQUALIFIED
and, vitalism and such kind
are ANTITHETICAL to legitimate science
For instance, in "Planet Medicine: Origins" (2001; ISBN 1556433697), author R. Grossinger admits
"there is perhaps no more succinct way to define vitalism than to say that it is everything which modern science is not [p.234]."
I cannot imagine any way of successfully arguing vitalism's scientific authenticity
the preponderantly and absurdly nonscientific is endorsed by naturopathy as scientific, as science-based, as science, as a foundation for a "branch of medical science."
Such a defense of blatantly 'scientifically rejected knowledge and explanation' would resemble arguing that 'Zeus throwing lightening bolts' is a legitimate, modern, scientific explanation and a science-based explanation for lightening; or explaining that fire is the presence of phlogiston.
Comparatively, the undergraduate prerequisite degree and coursework -- and by extension the intellect that is expected as a result, that is to be brought to the table to enter an in-residence, accredited naturopathy school – are exceedingly scrupulous in thought quality mannerism and mainstream preponderant content as regards science
Naturopathy’s dogmatic, radical deviance and nonsense without scientific justification, in the undergraduate realm alone, would be exceptionally unacceptable scholarship.
In my view, from my experience, the naturopathic claim that ‘vitalism [and teleology-finalism, spiritism, metaphysicalism and kind] is scientific anyway’ serves to show that naturopathic education is an extremely sophisticated indoctrination
Episode Conclusion:
This has been Part One of this two-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 006.
In Part Two, I will revisit what I'd written in 2006 regarding naturopathy's science categorical claim, and then revisit my 2006 conclusion.
And finally, I'll answer my overarching question for this episode.
Footnotes as Endnotes:
