The Nature of Science and the Unscientific Nature of Naturopathy: Open Oregon Educational Resources vs. AANMC

here, ah the basics, the basics:

001. in the Open Oregon Educational Resources textbook "MT Hood Community College Biology 211, 212, 213 - Principles of Biology" by Bartee and Creech  [Print ISBN 978-1-63635-041-7 ], for the entry "The Nature of Science", we're told:

"science [...] can be defined as knowledge about the natural world [...] there are however, areas of knowledge and human experience that the methods of science cannot be applied to. These include such things as answering purely moral questions, aesthetic questions, or what can be generally categorized as spiritual questions. Science can not investigate these areas because they are outside the realm of material phenomena, the phenomena of matter and energy, and can not be observed and measured";

so, an elementary reminder of the fundamental epistemic categorization of science in terms of its activity.

002. the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges' naturopathy definition regarding the heart of naturopathy:

002.a. there's of course vitalism, below, which I regard as a kind of covert supernaturalism [and some kind of overt supernaturalism], as we are told in "The Therapeutic Order" (2019) [2020 archived]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct form of healthcare, and is guided by its principles and therapeutic order [...] the Therapeutic Order guides how the naturopathic principles are applied [...] it includes seven steps that should be applied from the bottom up, increasing in intervention as needed to restore health [...]";

so, this is activity, not merely thoughts and beliefs.

"[naturopathy] is based on the idea that the human body possesses an inherent drive to heal itself [...] the Therapeutic Order [...#2 of the TO] stimulate self-healing [...] the healing process [...] the person’s vitality to increase, the self-healing process to be optimally engaged [...#2] stimulate the body’s self-healing mechanisms. Every person has within them an innate wisdom and intelligence that tends toward the optimal expression of health. In naturopathic medicine, this is called the 'vis medicatrix naturae.' The 'vis medicatrix naturae' is the body’s innate healing ability, the process of healing which engages with one’s 'vital force' or life force, as it is often termed [...]";

so, vitalism.  Which is science-ejected.  Sure the body heals, and that's no where exclusive to naturopathic thought and therein no where DISTINCT.  What is distinct is the HOW of the healing, the proposition that there is some kind of substantive entity as opposed to biology and chemistry and physics [aka science] at work and influenceable. 

"naturopathic physicians use various therapies such as nutrition, botanical medicine, physical medicine, lifestyle counseling, acupuncture, homeopathy and hydrotherapy to stimulate and enhance this mighty and dynamic force and process allowing the body to heal itself [...]";

and of course, after posing something that is immaterial / nonexistent in terms of science, yet falsely termed mighty, we get quackery.  Lots of JUNK therapeutics offered as basically co-equal to other quite nonnaturopathic interventions.

002.b. all termed "natural", obviously, and also termed 'of a science foundation' by AANMC, and its member schools either directly or by title;

003. and just to further emphasize that unwarranted expansion of the contents of science [to the point of the destruction of the category IMHO], the Next Generation Science Standards particularly point out that vitalism, naturopathy's focus in terms of its activity, is science-ejected;