Graham, Steel, Wardle 2022: Using Science to Wallpaper Over the Essentially Science-Ejected [how convenient]

here, another example of naturopaths [for the most part] forgoing illumination and admission regarding naturopathy’s essentially science-ejected core and instead attempting to slather a patina of science over it all:

001. in the paper “Primary Health Care Case Management Throughthe Lens of Complexity: An Exploratory Study of Naturopathic Practice Using ComplexityScience Principles”, the authors tell us:

[Graham, K. D., Steel, A., & Wardle, J. (2022). Primary health care case management through the lens of complexity: an exploratory study of naturopathic practice using complexity science principles. BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, 22(1), 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-022-03585-2]

:

"systems science is an interdisciplinary field of enquiry into the complex systems that exist in nature and other domains. Biomedicine to date has flourished using a paradigm of mechanism and reductionism to simplify the complex interactions and systems-based functioning of the human organism to reduced parts deemed to operate according to linear relationships. This approach has enabled significant development of knowledge and treatment options for managing health. However, with increasing levels of chronic and complex illness contributing to the global burden of disease, the limitations of a reductionistic approach for engaging with the complete, integrated and complex human system is becoming recognized [...]";

now, science is science, complexity and etc. or not, and biomedicine is an applied science.  That means there are some things not within the knowledge type, epistemically speaking, including articles of faith.  Here, we’re being told that there is a major flaw in modern science in the sense that since it requires evidence, parsimony, and all the other great traits that makes science rigorous, it is missing out on important things, basically.  What the naturopaths don’t seem to understand is that their sectarian claims and ways, which lack scientific support – e.g., vitalism, supernaturalism, homeopathy, iridology, etc. -- don’t magically get scientific support if all of a sudden what’s yet to be clearly understood is talked about with the special words system, complex, paradigm, mechamism, reductionistic, linear and kind.  This is superstitious thinking trying to remedy issues about the proper categorization of naturopathic superstitions.

002. let’s do science through and through for what one will categorize as science:

simple.  Instead of epistemic nihilism and epistemic conflation.  Simply put: either the claim is supported by science or not. Science is not the problem, secarian shoe-horning through ridiculous and rather embarassing semantic contortions is.

003. the essentially naturopathic elements which are increasingly science-exterior which the paper conveniently does not mention:

naturopathy’s vitalism [the Australian kind];

naturopathy’s supernaturalism as evidence through their metaphysicalholism/wholism model [the Australian kind];

naturopathy’s iridology [the Australian kind];

naturopathy’s homeopathy [the Australian kind];

and on and on.  The naturopaths are subtly arguing that all such is within science, because that would be complete.  How convenient.

004. yet, of course, the ruse continues, quite cogently summed up with the particularly Australian naturopathy academic claim that science and what’s mentioned in 003. – the science discarded or exterior -- are all to be termed:

science [the Australian kind].