here, some musings on a recent Canadian article on naturopathy:
001. Sharon Kirkey writes at nationalpost.com in “Naturopathy is Poised to 'Disrupt' Health-Care Status Quo, Proponents of Controversial Practice Say” (2019-09-27) [also here]:
"naturopathy is based on the supernatural, vitalistic belief that 'nature cures' [agreed!...] its practitioners have a 'philosophical aversion' to
prescription drugs, embrace homeopathy — a practice experts dismiss as
scientifically preposterous — and believe vitamin supplements can alter
the course of incurable diseases. Now, proponents of naturopathy say the
practice is poised to ultimately 'disrupt' the status quo in health care [...] 'naturopathy has the potential
to surpass allopathic care' — meaning, science-based, modern medicine — 'as a
dominant model of primary care,' the authors wrote [...]";
a great opening. If astrology is going to disrupt astronomy, and surpass it, then believe them naturopathy boosters... But superstition and pseudoscience likely won't...That would be endarkenment!
"a new
commentary [...] published in
the obscure journal Medicina [here at PubMed...] argues naturopathy fulfills three Christensen criteria for a 'disruptive innovation' [...]";
again, if astrology is going to supplant astronomy, then sure, believe them naturopathy boosters... Let me add that there is nothing innovative or progressive in terms of naturopathy. A long time ago, from Canada too, naturopathy was labeled a "failed medieval paradigm." Agreed. I've termed it often the naturopathillogical: an epistemic conflation falsely posing as an epistemic distinction; an unethical sectarian pseudoscience.
No comments:
Post a Comment