The Cullen-Snyder Framework (v.1.0) Application #002 – Australia’s Southern Cross University's Alluring Naturopathy Web Pages

here, the second application of the C-S Framework:

001. The Source Documents:

I’ve used six web pages at Australia’s Southern Cross University [accessed 2025-07-18]: 001.“Diploma of Health”; 002. “Master of Advanced Naturopathic Medicine”; 003. “Study Naturopathic Medicine”; 004. “Master of Naturopathic Medicine”; 005. “About Us”; 006. “The Science of Feeling Good: Southern Cross University Delivers a New Era for Naturopathic Medicine”, and 007. “Study at the National Centre for Naturopathic Medicine”.

The transcripts of embedded videos were included.

These pages are roughly present in terms of preservation at Archive.org since, minimally, 2023.  According to a Perplexity search, the funding of the SCU NCNM derives from private philanthropy, federal and state government research grants, industry, competitive research funding, and community financial contributions.

The pages were combined into a single PDF of 122 pages that was cleaned up in terms of ancillary outlinkings or hypertext referral language to ‘like’ programs at the University to reduce dilution.

Now, what’s fascinating about the six pages, up front, is the very strong science labeling and equating.  There is a huge amount of health science subset ‘naturopathy - exercise science -biomedical science - psychological science - evidence-based science’.  Particularly, there's the document / web page titled “The Science of Feeling Good: Southern Cross University Delivers a New Era for Naturopathic Medicine” featuring, amongst others, ND Wardle.

Nowhere in these pages is there “vitalism” as an explicit, informative, respectful, necessary disclosure in terms of naturopathy’s fundamentals, or a warning that such is science-ejected.  It’s all coded and camouflaged.

“Wardle” occurs at least eight times in the collection as he is the NCNM director, and, of course, it is his textbook that explicitly states that naturopathy is based on vitalism [some entity’s upload]:

 “vis medicatrix naturae sees the role of the practitioner as finding the cause (tolle causum) [sic. 'causam'] of the disturbance of vital force. The practitioner must then do no harm (primum non nocere) by using gentle, safe and non-invasive treatments from nature to restore the vital force, and to use preventative medicine by teaching (docere—doctor as teacher) the principles of good health to treat the whole person in body, mind and spirit. The above six principles rest upon those two essential tenets of the naturopathic understanding of health: vitalism and holism. Vitalism. A fundamental belief of naturopathy is that ill health begins with a loss of vitality. Health is positive vitality and not just an absence of medical findings of disease. Health is restored by raising the vitality of the patient, which initiates the regenerative capacity for self-healing. The vital force is diminished by a range of physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and environmental factors [p.2].”

This is all the while SCU offers a 'Bachelor of Health Science (Health and Lifestyle) subset naturopathy' as mentioned at SCU in “Naturopathic Centre Makes Significant Progress Despite2021 Headwinds” which is dated 2021-12-16 and attributed to ND Wardle.  Within that web document, Wardle tells us “through rigorous research, we continue to strengthen the evidence base for naturopathic medicine […] we worked with the World Naturopathic Federation to conduct a health technology assessment on naturopathy – the largest focused body of work on the naturopathic evidence base to date.” Yet, within that HTA up at the World Naturopathic Federation, naturopathy is stated as based on "vitalism (an innate intelligence of living organisms) [p.ix…and includes] homeopathy" [p.ix].  The SCU compilation used for this application does not mention either naturopathy's centerpieces of homeopathy or iridology. 

Oh, what a tangled web…

002. A Word on the Framework and Its Application:

The Framework is a fusion of my critical epistemology / scientific skepticism and Tim Snyder’s 'freedom to' / political philosophy.  The Framework version used is 1.0.  The application is achieved through a task by way of ChatGPT, wherein the 2025-07 default NLP model set is asked to “apply the attached framework model docx to the attached pdf and generate a detailed report.”  In large part, my interest in using this method is to see if what is generated jibes with my knowledge of the sources.  Overall, I find the results tight and poignant.

003. The "Evaluation Report:

“Evaluative Report: Southern Cross University's Naturopathy Programs (2025) through the Cullen-Snyder Framework:

I. Overview

Southern Cross University (SCU) offers a suite of programs in naturopathy:

• Diploma of Health (Naturopathic Studies Specialization)
• Master of Advanced Naturopathic Medicine
• Master of Naturopathic Medicine

These are evaluated below using the Cullen-Snyder Framework, which assesses epistemic integrity and freedom-related consequences of naturopathic education and practice.

II. Epistemic Profile (Cullen-Based)

A. Science Camouflage Index

Assessment: High

• Terms like “biochemistry,” “anatomy and physiology,” “evidence-based,” and “clinical reasoning” are prominently used, which aligns with scientific terminology.
• However, these are interwoven with references to “naturopathic principles,” “philosophical foundations,” “healing power of nature,” and “botanical medicine”—which have limited empirical verification in mainstream science.

Conclusion: SCU’s naturopathy programs use science-camouflaging language, blending biomedical vocabulary with pseudoscientific or traditional constructs.

B. Institutional Legitimacy Score

Assessment: Moderate to High

• The programs are hosted at a nationally accredited university (SCU), and degrees are integrated into official pathways (e.g., Bachelor-to-Master progression).
• Yet, the recognition is limited to naturopathic and complementary medicine associations, not by national medical regulatory bodies (e.g., AHPRA for medical practice in Australia).

Conclusion: Institutional legitimacy is bolstered by academic infrastructure, but weakens in relation to broader healthcare evidence standards.

III. Freedom Impact Matrix (Snyder-Based)

Freedom Dimension	Assessment & Commentary
Sovereignty	✦ Ambiguous: Programs promote autonomy in health choices but often without critically assessing the quality of information provided to students or future clients.
Unpredictability	✦ High Risk: Treatment variability is intrinsic to individualized naturopathic care; however, absence of uniform standards may increase health unpredictability.
Mobility	✦ Moderate: These degrees are pathways to specific careers, but not recognized in conventional clinical practice; therefore, career mobility is limited outside CAM fields.
Factuality	✦ Low: Blending of traditional belief systems with scientific terminology compromises access to truthful, critically verified health knowledge.
Solidarity	✦ Mixed: Programs emphasize integrative health and community wellness, but the non-mainstream nature of the training may isolate graduates from the broader health community.

IV. Implementation Protocol Evaluation

A. Epistemic Audit

•  SCU’s curriculum exhibits epistemic conflation, presenting traditional and scientific modalities side-by-side without adequate critical delineation.
• “Evidence-based practice” is emphasized, yet applied to modalities not supported by robust clinical trials (e.g., “Food as Medicine,” “Clinical Hypnosis,” and “Botanical Medicine”).

B. Freedom Impact Analysis

Students may believe they are being trained scientifically, while in fact being exposed to a hybrid model that includes non-falsifiable systems of thought. This shapes both consumer and practitioner freedom by embedding epistemic opacity in health education and practice.

C. Institutional Evaluation

•  SCU’s National Centre for Naturopathic Medicine contributes to professional identity but risks normalizing pseudoscience within university structures.
• The curriculum does not appear to contain safeguards (such as critical thinking modules focused on evaluating alternative medicine claims) to counteract Cullen’s "erosion vectors".

V. Summary of Findings

Component	Rating	Summary
Science Camouflage	🔴 High	Scientific terms are leveraged to lend legitimacy to unverified methods.
Institutional Legitimacy	🟡 Moderate	Strong academic placement but weak recognition by mainstream health authorities.
Factuality Freedom	🔴 Low	Blended epistemologies obscure access to truth, undermining informed freedom.
Positive Freedom	🟡 Moderate	Structural access to education is high, but epistemic quality control is lacking.
Solidarity	🟠 Mixed	Emphasis on community health exists but is siloed from evidence-based frameworks.

VI. Concluding Remarks

The SCU naturopathic programs embody a paradox of professionalization and epistemic ambiguity. While institutionalized and marketed as “evidence-based,” these programs blur the line between science and tradition, ultimately undermining Snyderian “freedom to” act on truth and Cullen’s call for knowledge integrity.

To align more fully with freedom-affirming education and responsible epistemic practice, the following reforms are recommended:

• Integrate critical thinking modules specifically focused on evaluating CAM claims.
• Require transparent epistemic disclaimers distinguishing evidence-supported methods from traditional or philosophical elements.
• Ensure curricular oversight by interdisciplinary panels, including medical ethicists and philosophers of science.”

004. My Comments on the Report:

So, generally, I kind of cringe when the vitalism and the supernaturalism that is at the heart of the naturopathic principles are not mentioned by a Report.  This is the second time, as that happened within the first Report / application, too.  Yet, somehow, though wishy-washy in many areas, the conclusion is something I can stand behind wholeheartedly as the parameters of the Framework are, basically, tripped as in activated [not tripped up!]. It even catches the ‘own-private-Idaho’ sectarian nature of naturopathy, broadly.  How the Report handles unpredictability is an issue, as it is a positive virtue within Snyder’s model yet such is NOT a positive within healthcare in terms of collective, verified, rigorously derived knowledge.  It gets unpredictability right in terms of healthcare risk, most importantly.  In a large sense, then, it may be interpreting unpredictability here as deviance.  I seriously love the determinations “Students may believe they are being trained scientifically, while in fact being exposed to a hybrid model that includes non-falsifiable systems of thought. This shapes both consumer and practitioner freedom by embedding epistemic opacity in health education and practice […] SCU’s National Centre for Naturopathic Medicine contributes to professional identity but risks normalizing pseudoscience within university structures.”  Oddly enough, the recommendations echo my call to reevaluate naturopathy that I produced within my Capstone.

005. At QS World University Rankings:

SCU is ranked presently at 638 with an overall score of 27.1.