naturocrit: The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 016a [s02e06a] Script and Annotations

This is the script and hypertext links for the two-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 016, aka s02e06, titled “The Cullen-Snyder Framework and AI-LLM Applications of That Framework.” I'll be sharing a hybrid framework I've recently created and my application of that framework to five data sets. Additionally, this Episode 016 Part 1 will include a comparison of the third application to my M.S. capstone, and a collected summary of the results of all the applications that were employed as examples:

001. 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 thirty-three 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 veneers "natural, holistic, integrative and alternative" and improperly embedded in the academic category "science".

002. Main text:

Synopsis

In this two-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 016 titled “The Cullen-Snyder Framework and AI-LLM Applications of That Framework,” I will present, detail, and apply – principally in Part 1 – an analytical and evaluative framework I’ve developed titled:

“The Cullen-Snyder Framework for Evaluative Analysis of Naturopathy with Regard to Freedom (v.1.0).”

The table of contents of this Part 1 is as follows:

the Cullen-Snyder Framework, Application #001 UM, Application #002 SCU, Application #003 UB with a comparison of Application #003 UB and my M.S. Capstone by way of that framework, a short bit on Bastyr and its 2025 condition of unsustainability, Application #004 CT Present Day Naturopathy and an accuracy check of that through a different AI-LLM than what was initially used for the application, Application #005 BC 2025 Naturopathy, and finally Part 1’s summary and conclusion.

In Part 2, I will cover:

past complaints and totalitarianism musings which includes applying the CSF to 2003 archived material, musing about Orwell’s 1984 and my life [really!], a new 2025 submission to the State of CT which includes the CSF and Application #004 CT Present Day Naturopathy, reflecting on 25 Years and an oath that made me vomit, AANMC emails’ patterns of opaque communication of naturopathy’s essential vitalism, the NUNM admissions pamphlet and school catalog from 1994-1996, and Part 2’s conclusion.

The Cullen-Snyder Framework for Evaluative Analysis of Naturopathy

with Regard to Freedom (v.1.0) Created June 2025.

I was in need of a tool, or curious if I could create a tool, that would encompass my criticism of naturopathy and naturopathy’s larger societal effects.

I couldn’t find one.

So, in my often bespoke or personalized approach to life, I created one.

I was inspired by the Online Misinformation Engagement Framework of 2024 that I’d come across during a graduate research project by Geers et al. in Current Opinion in Psychology,

[Geers, M., Swire-Thompson, B., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Herzog, S. M., Kozyreva, A., & Hertwig, R. (2024). The Online Misinformation Engagement Framework. Current Opinion in Psychology, 55, 101739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101739]

but I wanted to add something broader with aspects more fundamental or upstream from my usual ‘naturopathy is bogus and here’s why’ approach which usually centered around web-based materials anyway.

I wanted a part of the tool to justify why it is important to combat ‘the bogus’ in a macro or values sense.

So, I had a go at building one from ingredients I was familiar with.

I will refer to the resulting framework as the CSF, for Cullen-Snyder Framework.

Here’s the recipe: I combined ‘my critical epistemology / scientific skepticism’, the concept of ‘freedom for / positive freedom’ as entailed within the recent 2024 [oops, I say 2014 in the audio!] book by Tim Snyder “On Freedom”, and some A.I.-large language model tasking.

My gratitude for and acknowledgement of Tim Snyder’s material, as published in the book and employed in the CSF, is evident in that major attribution within its title.

It is not because he has either participated in this project, or endorsed it, and of course, he isn’t even aware of it.

Huh, ‘freedom?’, you may ask…

So, a hearty quote from the book is in order.

Snyder writes:

“Freedom is the value of values, because it is the condition in which all other values may be exercised [p. 53…] you were not born free. But neither were you born to be a vessel of lies. Your destiny is neither subjugation nor automation. You can evaluate, transform, and take responsibility. Declare yourself free. Then accommodate yourself to tender virtues and bruising facts, to friends and neighbors, to fellow citizens, but not to expectations or algorithms. Life can be much better than it seems to us now, as individuals and as citizens. We can become free [p. 234].”

With naturopathy, I found myself living within the lies of another, pawned by naturopaths’ and their enablers’ lies.

As Snyder writes in On Freedom:

“Factuality is a form of freedom. Factuality means telling the truth […] it means living in truth, rather than taking comfort from a big lie [p. 182].”

I found myself both financially and conceptually tyrannized, and particularly subjugated into debt slavery and possessing all the rights of a peasant in the Middle Ages.

That, in terms of how I relate to naturopathy and how it distorted my life, will always be.

Yet, I Sisyphus onward…

I resist.

Adelante.

I find the concept of factuality to be the bridge between my approach and Snyder’s.

Because, of course, the means to factuality is science as a rigorous modern epistemic process of being self-testing and self-correcting, organized, and systematized.

Factuality is now a term within the Naturocrit logo, as:

"‘factuality and freedom [in opposition to] deceit and sectarian capture’ along with ‘scientific skepticism [in opposition to] the naturalness fallacy’ [oops, audio missing 'unquote].

In coupling with Snyder’s concepts of freedom, I’ve inherently indicated that I’ve been greatly inspired and transformed by what has been publicly shared by Dr. Snyder.

I’ve leaned into the acts of evaluation, transformation, and taking responsibility.

Yet, to a large extent, even with my talk of all this deliberateness, certain accidents led to the creation of the CSF early in the summer of 2025.

There is my own background with the humanities, those interests, which led to me reading On Freedom in the months before.

There was me starting to experiment with the AI-LLM models through their free but limited versions because I’d created a new podcast logo with Microsoft Visio and I wanted so see what ChatGPT could do with putting some polish on it.

That polishing was impressive, and free!

Therefore, as just mentioned, the new 2025 Naturocrit logo has the text: Naturocrit, scientific skepticism, naturalness fallacy, factuality and freedom, deceit and sectarian capture.

Those word choices were the direct result of having the concerns of On Freedom in my mind in relation to naturopathy during the logo upgrade process.

With the graphic successfully done, I then started thinking about what generative and logic capabilities could be within these models for text towards similarly creating a polished tool and a robust reporting mechanism.

I’d never used ChatGPT or things like it before because I thought they’d suck.

But I was now open to trial in that text and logic sense.

The experiment was to have the models within the likes of ChatGPT and Perplexity create a detailed framework from both my own critical epistemology -- primarily using my podcast introduction elevator speech, oddly enough -- and Snyder’s On Freedom.

Now, it is very likely that what was used for Snyder material was scraped by the AI-LLMs from online reviews, Snyder videos [e.g. at YouTube 2021-10-20], and various discussions.

Oddly enough, I did not and did not feel it was right to feed On Freedom into the model as something like a PDF and it is likely that the models are not allowed to implement the book in that way without permission.

Whether they do so anyway, is a question, perhaps.

It seems schools, even K-12, are very quickly incorporating student AI-LLM usage into their curricula, so it also seems likely another route to the models’ exposure to the Snyder material is through academic usage.

Anyway, after a few trials, I got Perplexity to generate a framework I liked, which is the CSF v.1.0.

There is, honestly, one change I made upon review of that framework.

It may seem petty, but, within the implementation protocol area of the CSF, it wrote “dual axis assessment.”

I changed axis to “sub-componentry.”

I find axis to be too World War II in connotation.

Specifically, the task to Perplexity was:

“Using the title ‘The Cullen-Snyder Framework for Evaluative Analysis of Naturopathy with Regard to Freedom’ as [a] guide, create a framework to achieve the goals of that title from the two attached guiding documents.”

The CSF goes like this, and this is the document that I have uploaded to archive.org:

“2025-06-16 – Authored by Rob Cullen.

The Cullen-Snyder Framework for Evaluative Analysis of Naturopathy with Regard to Freedom (v.1.0) [here it is at Substack] [here it is at archive.org].

Note: The Snyder aspect of this framework is drawn from the publication On Freedom (2024) and is not meant to portray involvement in any way by Tim Snyder whatsoever.

Overview

The Cullen-Snyder Framework for Evaluative Analysis of Naturopathy with Regard to Freedom synthesizes critical epistemology (Cullen) and political philosophy (Snyder) to assess naturopathy’s societal impacts through dual lenses of scientific integrity and human liberty.

This interdisciplinary approach evaluates how naturopathic practices intersect with fundamental freedoms while maintaining analytical rigor.

Foundational Principles

1. Epistemic-Social Interdependence

Combines Cullen’s concept of "epistemic conflation" (blending scientific and pseudoscientific claims) with Snyder’s "factuality freedom" (access to truth as prerequisite for liberty).

Establishes that misrepresented knowledge systems inherently threaten freedom.

2. Freedom as Active Construction

Integrates Snyder’s positive freedom ("freedom to" through institutional support) with Cullen’s warning about institutional erosion from pseudoscience.

Positions authentic freedom as requiring both accurate information and structural safeguards.

Key Analytical Components

A. Naturopathy’s Epistemic Profile (Cullen-Based)

Science Camouflage Index: Measures proportion of science-exterior claims presented as science-based.

Institutional Legitimacy Score: Assesses academic/professional recognition relative to evidentiary support.

B. Freedom Impact Matrix (Snyder-Based)

Evaluates effects on Snyder’s five freedoms:

Freedom Dimension	Naturopathy Evaluation Criteria
Sovereignty	Patient autonomy vs. misinformation risks
Unpredictability	Treatment variability and evidence consistency
Mobility	Healthcare choices constrained/preserved
Factuality	Accuracy of disclosed information
Solidarity	Community health outcomes vs. individual claims

Implementation Protocol

1. Dual Sub-Componentry Assessment

o Epistemic Audit: Map naturopathic claims using Cullen’s knowledge-blending taxonomy

o Freedom Impact Analysis: Apply Snyder’s five freedoms through weighted metrics

2. Institutional Evaluation

Analyze how healthcare systems/policies:

o Enable Snyder’s "positive freedom" through science literacy

o Counteract Cullen’s "erosion vectors" of pseudoscientific infiltration

Synopsis

This framework provides a structured method to simultaneously evaluate medical claims’ validity and their implications for societal freedom, operationalizing Snyder’s philosophical constructs through Cullen’s empirical critique.”

[end of framework]

Though that archive.org upload doesn’t indicate it, properly I believe the two best references that one would formally indicate as source material would be of course Snyder’s book On Freedom and for my side of the material, both my M.S. capstone project and as I’ve said, the introduction to the podcast.

Now, otherwise, I haven’t been that futzy about the language of the CSF line by line because the overall outline and workflow as operationalized priorities is good and the operative verbs are good.

That’s what gets to a report that is well-structured and executed.

I’ll now review 5 applications of the CSF.

5 Applications of the CSF

I decided to spread around the application of the CSF to sources of varied geography and recency.

So, there’s the U.S., Australia, and Canada.

And now and then.

The material is what is presently available online, though the materials for the U.B. application is historical and at archive.org.

The application results were posted at the Naturocrit blog in July and August of 2025:

#001 – UM

This web page reflects, in my view, the worst kind of sectarian capture.

This is the post, which I will read in full.

[start of post]

“The Cullen-Snyder Framework (v.1.0) Application #001 – University of Minnesota ND Ratte ‘Naturopathy’ Promotional Web Page.

Here, the first application of the C-S Framework.

Pleasing!!!

001. The Source Documents:

I’ve used the long-standing“Naturopathy” page at the University of Minnesota attributed to contributor ND Paul Ratte, a 1997 NUNM grad.

Ironically, the heading for the page is “taking charge of your wellbeing.”

UM has had the page up with these very strong science categorization claims, in some version, since, according to Archive.org, 2009.

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 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.

[start of report]

003. The ‘Evaluation Report: University of Minnesota Document on Naturopathy’:

I. Epistemic Audit (Cullen-Based Evaluation).

1. Science Camouflage Index: Assessment: High [high is bad!].

The document frequently presents naturopathy as ‘science-based,’ citing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and using scientific terminology (e.g., cardiology, immunology, pharmacology).

However, it blends these with non-scientific methods such as homeopathy, botanical medicine, and hydrotherapy, which lack broad consensus or empirical grounding in scientific communities.

Example: The integration of evidence-based concepts (RCTs for riboflavin) with therapies like homeopathy suggests epistemic conflation, a hallmark of ‘science camouflage.’

2. Institutional Legitimacy Score: Assessment: Moderate to Low [low is bad!].

The document references training comparable to conventional medical education, which lends an air of legitimacy.

Yet the actual evidentiary support for many core modalities (e.g., treating “the healing power of nature” as a guiding principle) remains limited or anecdotal.

The academic tone obscures the lack of consensus or regulatory parity with MD or DO credentials.

II. Freedom Impact Matrix (Snyder-Based Evaluation)

This is a table of three columns: freedom dimension, evaluation, and rationale.

Freedom Dimension	Evaluation	Rationale
Sovereignty	⚠️ Mixed	Patient autonomy is celebrated through personalized treatments. However, misinformation risk arises when unproven treatments are presented as effective, potentially undermining informed consent.
Unpredictability	⚠️ Compromised	The individualized nature of care creates treatment inconsistency. This variability reduces predictability of outcomes across patients.
Mobility	✅ Preserved [I disagree, see my comments]	Patients retain freedom to choose or reject naturopathic care. The document acknowledges collaboration with conventional medicine.
Factuality	❌ Threatened	The document interweaves validated and speculative claims. Factuality, defined by access to accurate and verifiable truth, is undermined by epistemic blending.
Solidarity	⚠️ Ambiguous	Community health might suffer if unverified treatments are adopted widely. However, attention to patient-centered care may promote subjective well-being.

III. Institutional Evaluation

Support for Positive Freedom:

The emphasis on education, long consultations, and individualized plans contributes to empowerment and agency, aligning with Snyder’s vision of “freedom to” via institutional support.
However, these freedoms are built on a foundation partially compromised by pseudoscience, which weakens long-term structural integrity.

Counteraction of Erosion Vectors:

There is little explicit safeguarding against epistemic erosion.
The coexistence of evidence-based and non-evidence-based methods without critical distinction opens the door to pseudoscientific infiltration.
Institutional authority (University affiliation) is used to legitimize less rigorous claims, exacerbating erosion of trust in academic/scientific standards.

IV. Conclusion & Recommendations

Conclusion:

The University of Minnesota’s publication on naturopathy fails key benchmarks of epistemic integrity while maintaining a surface-level alignment with individual freedom values.
The educational setting lends credibility to methodologies that often escape rigorous validation, posing risks to both factuality and scientific legitimacy.

Recommendations:

Disaggregate scientific from traditional/empirical methods—clearly label which claims are supported by RCTs and which are experiential or theoretical [see my comments].
Develop institutional safeguards that ensure all educational health content meets minimal standards of epistemic transparency.
Empower patient choice by improving factual clarity in all promotional or educational materials, especially in university contexts.’

[end of report]

004. My Comments on the Report:

Variability is mentioned as a draw-back under unpredictability, but mobility is highly threatened too in the sense of continuity of care for the individual patient who needs to pass-off responsibility for their care, or even basic understanding of their care, to another practitioner or facility.

More broadly, since mobility is a life-opportunity and financial improvement opportunity emphasis in On Freedom, spending one's money on expensive medically erroneous misadventures seems captivating as opposed to creating mobility opportunities.

Regarding "experiential or theoretical" within the recommendations section, the use of theory therein may be too pedestrian like when the man or woman on the street says 'evolution is only a theory.'

Speculative is the better word, which is actually within the report at a different area.

Needless to say, the UM page results by way of the Framework application are, to sum up with one word: atrocious.

One is not ‘taking charge’ of one's wellbeing if one's freedom is inherently undermined.

005. The University of Minnesota is, supposedly, a top-tier research university:

And here it is stating science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy-vitalism-supernaturalism and kind.

It is quite easy to be better than that without trashing both scientific integrity and freedom of belief.”

[end of post]

#002 – SCU

More sectarian capture.

Here’s the post in full:

[start of post]

“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 seven web pages at Australia’s Southern Cross University [accessed 2025-07-18]:

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 seven 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 is 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 [from 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 these 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].”

[Sidebar:

That 2014 Wardle book, authored by Sarris and Wardle and published by Elsevier Australia, “Clinical Naturopathy: An Evidence-based Guide to Practice - 2^nd Edition”, is actually hosted by India’s “Naturopathy Registration Board” which is the government of India at nrb.net.in.

And we’re told in its forward, by North American ND Pam Snider who helped develop the North American naturopathy principles, and now, apparently also those of India in terms of adoption:

“The tenets of the healing process […] these tenets [such as vitalism and supernaturalism] are increasingly supported by a wealth of scientific evidence [p. vii].”

Close sidebar.]

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 Despite 2021 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) […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.

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.

[start of report]

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)

This a table of two columns: freedom dimension and assessment & commentary.

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

This is a table of three columns: component, rating, and summary.

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.’

[end of report]

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.”

[end of post]

#003 – UB

This school closed but is my alma mater and the materials are historical -- historical sectarian capture with lifelong consequences.

Here’s the post in full:

[start of post]

“The Cullen-Snyder Framework (v.1.0) Application #003 – University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine Curriculum and Materials 1997-2004.

Here, the third application of the C-S Framework:

001. The Source Documents:

This is a bunch of stuff totaling 111 pages as a single PDF that I titled “Connecticut Archival Naturopathy at UB - 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004.”

I include each source at Archive.org to accommodate replication.

The scanned documents were pared down.

The perpetual [Archive.org saved] list:

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.

This time I specified that the report include itemized naturopathy science categorizations and itemized naturopathy contents that are not scientifically supported such as vitalism and homeopathy.

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 robust and poignant.

[start of report]

003. The Evaluative Report:

“Here is a detailed report applying the Cullen-Snyder Framework for Evaluative Analysis of Naturopathy with Regard to Freedom to 'the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine curriculum and materials (from the 1997–2004 archives)'.

I. Epistemic Audit (Cullen-Based Analysis)

1. Science Camouflage Index

This metric evaluates how extensively non-scientific or pseudoscientific practices are framed using scientific language or embedded alongside scientific content.

Category	Description	Examples from UB Curriculum	Index Score (0–5)
Mixed Scientific and Pseudoscientific Claims	Scientific terms (e.g., physiology, pathology) are co-listed with non-empirical systems	Homeopathy, Vis Medicatrix Naturae, Botanical Medicine, Naturopathic Manipulative Therapy appear beside Clinical Nutrition and Pathology	4.5
Pseudoscience Framed in Scientific Language	Vague metaphysical concepts are cloaked in medical phrasing	Phrases like “inherent self-healing process,” “intelligent vital force,” “ordered and intelligent healing”	5.0
Conflation of Traditional with Scientific	Oriental Medicine, Hydrotherapy, and Homeopathy are described as both empirical and scientific	Described as “modern and traditional, scientific and empirical methods”	4.5

Composite Science Camouflage Index Score: 4.7 / 5

2. Institutional Legitimacy Score

This reflects the extent to which academic/professional legitimacy is claimed and presented despite low empirical support.

Criteria	Evidence from UB Materials	Evaluation
Claimed Professional Status	Curriculum claims ND as “primary health care” and “portal of entry”	Overstates clinical equivalence to MDs
Credentialed Structure	4-year doctoral program, structured around clinical/lab sciences	Emulates medical school format
Scientific Accreditation Claims	Uses terms like "national professional educational standards" and mentions Council on Naturopathic Medical Education	Not recognized by mainstream medical institutions

Institutional Legitimacy Score: 2 / 5

II. Itemized Science-Based and Non-Science-Based Content

A. Science-Based Curriculum Elements

Category	Courses	Notes
Basic Sciences	Anatomy I & II, Physiology I & II, Biochemistry, Histology, Embryology	Standard medical sciences
Clinical Sciences	Pathology I & II, Diagnostic Imaging, Immunology, Pharmacology I & II, Public Health, Emergency Procedures	Empirically grounded
Clinical Nutrition	Nutrition I & II	Scientific basis depending on content
Microbiology & Lab Diagnosis	Microbiology, Lab Diagnosis I & II	Accepted scientific foundations

B. Non-Scientific or Pseudoscientific Curriculum Elements

Category	Courses/Content	Reason for Classification
Vitalism	“Vis Medicatrix Naturae” (The Healing Power of Nature)	Based on metaphysical assumptions; no empirical mechanism
Homeopathy	Homeopathy I, II, III + 144 elective hours	Lacks scientific plausibility; widely discredited
Naturopathic Manipulative Therapy	Manipulative Therapy I & II	Based on alternative theories lacking RCT validation
Oriental Medicine	72 hours on Traditional Chinese Medicine	Largely untestable diagnostic framework (Qi, meridians)
Minor Surgery (Naturopathic Framing)	Elective courses only	Techniques valid, but context/practice setting often lacking regulatory oversight
Naturopathic Obstetrics	Course + electives	Concern due to low empirical support for natural childbirth under naturopathic care alone
Botanical Medicine	Botanical Medicine I & II + electives	Mixed evidence; variable standardization and dosage control
Medical Philosophy & Spiritual Factors	Courses on “Physician Heal Thyself,” “Doctor as Teacher,” spiritual health development	Not scientific; philosophical or personal belief systems

III. Freedom Impact Matrix (Snyder-Based Analysis)

Freedom Dimension	Impact of Naturopathy at UB	Score (–2 to +2)
Sovereignty	Encourages autonomy, but informed consent is compromised due to misinformation (e.g., homeopathy, vitalism)	–1
Unpredictability	High variability in therapeutic outcomes; low reproducibility for non-scientific methods	–2
Mobility	Expands healthcare options, though legal recognition varies by state; potential risks if patients forgo standard care	0
Factuality	Significant epistemic conflation obscures truth and undermines informed choice	–2
Solidarity	May undermine public trust in healthcare and herd-based interventions like vaccination	–1

Freedom Impact Summary: Overall negative impact on Snyder’s freedom dimensions, primarily due to factual ambiguity and institutional undermining of science-based norms.

IV. Institutional Evaluation (Freedom & Scientific Integrity)

Science Literacy and Positive Freedom

Obstruction: By introducing students to pseudoscience under the guise of scientific training, the institution may erode public understanding of evidence-based healthcare.

Erosion Vectors (per Cullen)

Pseudoscientific Infiltration: The institutional embedding of concepts like vitalism, homeopathy, and energy medicine erodes scientific norms and blurs lines of academic legitimacy.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine presents a blended epistemology where legitimate biomedical training is extensively interwoven with pseudoscientific and metaphysical ideologies.

While the curriculum includes substantial coursework in anatomy, pathology, and diagnosis, it also devotes hundreds of hours to practices that lack scientific validation.

Key Findings

High Science Camouflage Index (4.7): Pseudoscience is deeply embedded within a scientific structure.
Low Institutional Legitimacy Score (2): Framed as scientific, but lacking in external professional and academic validation.
Negative Freedom Impact: Primarily in factuality, unpredictability [see my comments], and sovereignty.

Recommendations

Separate scientific from non-scientific coursework in course catalogs and curricula.
Require disclaimers where evidence is lacking.
Increase focus on critical thinking and evidence appraisal.
Reassess inclusion of courses that do not meet scientific thresholds.”

[end of report]

004. My Comments on the Report:

Unpredictability, again, is not well managed by the model’s processes.

High amounts of unpredictability within Snyder’s model, as regards good values being assembled in varied ways due to an individual’s preferences, is wanted.

Of course, not so in healthcare in terms of the knowledge processes and parameters, and particularly as regards the values that are expected.

So, such is labeled by the model as a negative, which is right, yet, I don’t think the distinction or the complete appreciation of the Snyderian sense is occurring.

But, besides that, overall, the findings are spot-on.

005. A follow-up question to Perplexity using the above report [quite disturbing]:

[start of follow-up question]

005.a. The Question:

"Are there any similar examples in the United States to the legislated permission to commit fraud and deceit as happens presently in the State of Connecticut with naturopathy as entailed in the attached docx report?"

[And the attached report was the ChatGPT Assessment #003.]

005.b. The Answer:

"Legislated Permission for Naturopathic Practices and Fraud in the U.S.

Context from Connecticut

The University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine curriculum, as explored in your attached report, highlights a unique case in Connecticut where:

Naturopathy is legally sanctioned despite widespread inclusion of pseudoscientific courses (e.g., homeopathy, vitalism).
There is a high degree of "science camouflage," where unscientific practices are presented alongside (and indistinguishable from) legitimate scientific medical content.
Regulatory or legislative frameworks permit the licensing and promotion of modalities widely recognized as lacking in empirical scientific foundation.

The report frames this as "legislated permission to commit fraud and deceit," due to the legal allowance of health professionals to practice and market therapies not supported by credible scientific evidence, with significant public health consequences.

Are There Analogous Situations in Other U.S. States?

1. State Licensure and Regulation of Naturopathy

Licensure & Protection: 26 U.S. jurisdictions (states plus DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands) currently license or regulate naturopathic doctors. These legislative acts provide ND practitioners with legal and professional standing similar to that in Connecticut, regardless of the pseudoscientific content often present in accredited naturopathic curricula.
Scope of Practice: In many of these states, naturopaths are granted broad scopes, sometimes including authority for minor surgery, prescription rights, and primary care responsibilities, enabling practices like homeopathy and vitalism under official endorsement.
Legislative Alchemy [Go Jann!]: The process by which these permissions are secured has been termed "legislative alchemy" - where lobbying convinces lawmakers to treat alternative therapies as legitimate healthcare despite overwhelming scientific criticism.

2. Statutory Exemptions and Professional Boards

In numerous states, state regulatory boards exist that purport to oversee NDs' professional behavior but set the standard of care according to the norms of naturopathy, not conventional evidence-based medicine. This legal structure effectively protects practices that would otherwise be considered fraudulent or deceptive in standard medical contexts.
For example, regulations in Pennsylvania and California enumerate unprofessional conduct (including fraud), but these definitions are interpreted within the alternative standards of naturopathy, not evidence-based medicine, allowing many pseudoscientific claims to flourish under legal sanction.

3. Federal and State Responses

Fraud Enforcement: Actual legal action against naturopathic fraud generally only occurs in cases of clear financial impropriety (improper billing, insurance fraud), rather than the fraudulent promotion of pseudoscientific methods per se. For instance, in Connecticut, a naturopath and clinic owner paid $400,000 to settle allegations of improper Medicare/Medicaid billing, but not for practicing or promoting unscientific therapies.
Legal Loopholes: As long as a treatment regime is sanctioned by the naturopathic board and/or state statutes, the underlying scientific validity is rarely subject to fraud prosecution—even where widely regarded as pseudoscientific.

Comparative Overview

Note: In all licensing states, as in Connecticut, pseudoscientific modalities embedded within accredited ND programs are, in practice, legally permissible so long as they conform to their profession's own standards.

Conclusion

Connecticut's situation - where legislative structures enable licensed practice of fundamentally unscientific health care - is not unique within the U.S. Similar legal frameworks exist in at least 26 jurisdictions, including large states such as California, Oregon, and Washington.

These laws provide broad professional protection to naturopaths, effectively indemnifying the legally sanctioned promotion and use of pseudoscientific methods, as long as they fall within the state's defined ND scope of practice.

While legal action may occur for blatant financial fraud, there is no precedent for prosecution - or legislative reversal - based solely on the promotion of unscientific therapies within licensed naturopathic practice.

In effect, many states have codified exemptions for what would otherwise be considered medical fraud or consumer deception in conventional healthcare.”

[end of follow-up question]

005.c. My response:

Wow, tragically...wow.

006. Personally:

This all occurred in my life through Title IV at this school from 1998-2002.

The school within UB was closed, but the nonsense continues at naturopathy programs with such categorically misleading names as National University of Health Sciences and Sonoran University of Health Sciences here in the U.S.”

[end of post]

A Perplexity Comparison of My M.S. Capstone and Application #003.

I’d just mentioned for Application #002 that many of the suggested remedies reminded me of my Capstone project for my M.S. in 2021.

I decided to run a Perplexity task comparing the Application #003 of UB to that Capstone in terms of similarity.

Now, I’ll always be grateful to Excelsior University for allowing me, for the Capstone, to create an issue-and-remedy kind of white paper document that was focused on a topic I’m very passionate about.

As I’ve said in the past, that process as instructed was very rubric-bound.

Incidentally, one way of testing whether or not I wrote that capstone, using today’s resources in 2025, is to get feedback on it from the AI-LLM offerings out there.

And they give lots of advice on at least several of my poor word choices and judgmental phrasings.

I guess that kind of unassisted student composition process is gone forever, since, as I mentioned, I’m amazed at how much AI-LLM adoption is being written about in as occurring in the K-12 and further up education realms.

I’m 55 years old and yet just merely the self-written aspect of that 2021 piece kind of makes me feel, independent of my age, like a fossil.

The task to Perplexity was:

“Be detailed about the similarities in the contents and recommendations that are offered when comparing the attached Capstone docx and the attached Application pdf.”

The answer was:

“Both the Capstone Project (focused on Bastyr University’s Center for Natural Health) and the Cullen-Snyder Framework Application (evaluating University of Bridgeport’s College of Naturopathic Medicine) conduct in-depth critiques of naturopathic education and practice, exposing how pseudoscientific content is embedded within institutions under the guise of evidence-based medicine.

Both documents highlight systemic issues in how “science camouflage” is used to legitimize epistemically unwarranted modalities and offer comparable recommendations for remedying these [oops, I say 'those' in the audio] issues.

Similarities in Content

Both analyses detail the pseudoscientific inclusion and labeling practices in naturopathic programs:

Science Camouflage / False Science Categorization: Each document identifies how practices such as homeopathy, vitalism, and medical astrology are misrepresented as “science-based” or embedded alongside legitimate biomedical training.
Curricular Blending of Pseudoscience and Science: Both schools - Bastyr and UB - are described as offering substantial hours of coursework in anatomy, pathology, and diagnostics, interwoven with extensive material in therapies lacking empirical support (e.g., homeopathy, craniosacral therapy, astrology, supplements, energy medicine).
Institutional Legitimacy & Accreditation Issues: Both documents criticize accreditors (e.g., CNME) for rubber-stamping programs that blend unverified modalities into their science-based coursework, resulting in misleading public and professional assurances.
Regulatory and Legislative Protections: Both show how licensure and regulatory bodies enable and protect these practices not on scientific merit, but by professional norms defined within naturopathy itself.
Impact on Stakeholders: Each paper maps how vulnerable patients, students, public funding, and academic standards are negatively affected by pseudoscientific infiltration and regulatory failures.

Similarities in Recommendations

The recommendations made in both documents converge on several key points:

Separation or Clear Labeling: Both recommend that curricula clearly distinguish and/or separate scientifically validated content from non-scientific courses, with explicit disclaimers wherever scientific evidence is lacking, to prevent misleading students and the public.
Critical Thinking and Evidence Appraisal: A call is made for increased curricular emphasis on epistemology, critical thinking, and rigorous evidence appraisal as a remedy to gullibility and epistemic laxity.
Audit and Restructuring: Both advocate for comprehensive audits (e.g., a “Flexner Report 2” for contemporary programs) by impartial scientific bodies, recommending broad restructuring of the curriculum, clinical activities, and institutional assurances to align with standards of evidence-based healthcare.
Protect Public Funding and Patients: Both stress that public resources, such as Medicaid, should only be used for treatments meeting modern performance and evidence benchmarks, and advocate for the exclusion of unscientific therapies from reimbursement and practice.
Accountability and Professional Ethics: A common recommendation is to strengthen accountability measures for educators, accreditors, and practitioners to enforce authentic scientific and professional ethical standards - countering science fakery and academic fabulism.

Comparative Table

Theme	Capstone Project (Bastyr)	Application PDF (UB)
Science Camouflage	False science categorizations, vitalism, homeopathy labeled “science-based”	High science camouflage index, pseudoscience integrated with science
Stakeholder Harms	Vulnerable patients, students, public purse, accreditation, literature polluted	Negative freedom impact, erosion vectors, loss of academic legitimacy
Accreditation Critique	Accrediting bodies permit blending of science and pseudoscience; lack of auditing	Institutional legitimacy is low due to lack of external validation
Recommendations	Require separation, disclaimers, critical thinking, audits, ethics enforcement	Separate courses, require disclaimers, more critical thinking, reassess curriculum
Audit Proposal	Flexner Report 2 - impartial, multidisciplinary curriculum audit	Calls for similar robust external assessment fielded by skeptics and scientists

Conclusion

Both documents provide robust, evidence-driven critiques of the strategic blending of pseudoscientific and scientific material in naturopathic education, identify similar systemic harms, and converged on nearly identical remedies: curricular reform to ensure clarity and scientific legitimacy, structural audits of institutions, safeguarding of public resources, and robust enforcement of critical thinking and ethical standards in healthcare education and practice.”

While I’m on the Topic of Bastyr

I’ll wedge this little bit in between Application #003 and #004 due to current events surrounding Bastyr, since BU goes way back in terms of false inducements I experienced as it was a member of the AANP Alliance in the mid-1990s that was promising ‘science not a belief system’ concerning naturopathy.

This bit is about the unsustainable and BU.

One can argue that the worldview, the knowledge scaffolding, the belief-science unjustifiable jumble or ambiguation that is offered by Bastyr - the disoriented esotericism as I term it in my capstone about Bastyr - is unsustainable.

And I’ll lift such language as currently expressed in a press release of August 2025:

"Bastyr University is a nonprofit, private university offering doctoral, graduate, and undergraduate degrees with a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural health and medicine. Recognized globally for its rigorous curriculum and strong research, Bastyr University has campuses in Kenmore, Washington, and San Diego, California, and offers online graduate degrees. Bastyr University faculty educate future leaders in the natural health arts and sciences, with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit, and nature."

I posed to Perplexity this question:

“Are there concerns with the statement […] when, particularly, the ‘nature’ or ‘healing power of nature’ aspect of ‘natural health and medicine’ is science-ejected vitalism presented in a coded manner?”

The answer, and at least half the sourcing was from naturopathy proponentry online resources:

“There are substantive concerns with the statement about Bastyr University, particularly regarding the invocation of ‘nature’ or the ‘healing power of nature’ in a science-based context. While the university describes itself as offering a rigorous, multidisciplinary, and science-based curriculum in natural health and medicine, a core principle taught and promoted - often called ‘vis medicatrix naturae’ or the body's inherent healing power [actually written into Bastyr’s badge or logo and NUNM’s in the 1990s {both checked}] - originates in vitalism, a metaphysical worldview that is largely rejected by mainstream science […] while contemporary naturopathic practitioners, including those at Bastyr, may avoid explicit references to mystical forces [and by the way, I labeled naturopathy in my deposition ‘cultic mystical weirdness’], their interpretation of ‘healing power of nature’ still operates outside the framework of scientifically testable and falsifiable mechanisms. Critics argue that terms like ‘nature’ or ‘vital force’ are often deployed in a coded way to introduce non-scientific, vitalistic beliefs while retaining the appearance of scientific legitimacy […] Bastyr and similar institutions have been strongly criticized for presenting pseudoscientific concepts such as homeopathy, energy medicine, and unscientific naturopathic modalities as part of a ‘science-based’ curriculum. Faculty and curricula at Bastyr draw on both evidence-based and unscientific traditions, sometimes treating both as equally valid approaches, undermining their claim to scientific rigor […] using ‘healing power of nature’ or ‘integration of mind, body, spirit, and nature’ without scientific grounding essentially recycles vitalistic philosophy in a modern guise, potentially misleading students and the public about the scientific legitimacy of these ideas […] accredited scientific and academic communities generally do not accept the fundamental tenets of vitalism, and thus view such framing as either misleading or fundamentally at odds with a science-based healthcare education.”

Ouch.

But, let’s talk money because that statement was pulled from the press release titled "Bastyr University Hires Chief Administrative Officer Randy Frisch, PhD, Esq. to Lead Turnaround Effort."

I tasked Perplexity with telling me about Bastyr’s financial situation.

The answer included:

“Bastyr University is currently facing severe financial difficulties, including a significant budget shortfall and accreditation concerns, which have forced the institution to list its main Kenmore, Washington campus for sale as a last resort to stabilize finances and ensure its survival […] Bastyr’s situation exemplifies the deep financial strain faced by some private universities amid changing educational demand and rising operational costs.”

So, doubly unsustainable.

It should be noted, too, that BU has appointed founding president Pizzorno, who left that position 25 years ago, as interim president.

The BU page titled “Bastyr University Founding President Joseph E. Pizzorno, ND Returns to Lead Natural Health Arts and Science Institution into New Era”, dated July 2025, states:

“Bastyr University is struggling through some problems that affect its health, and in partnership with the board, cabinet, faculty, and staff, I will work to heal the university and restore it to a place of enduring wellness.”

Ah, the wellness of the naturopathillogical.

#004 – CT Overall Present-Day

Here we go, live and local, because this is the state where I live and these are my fellow citizens.

Sometimes Connecticut, when things are rough an being presented either cynically or rather ironically, is nicknamed Corrupticut which is reflected after many scandals by way of a New York Times March 2003 article.

Here’s the post in full:

[start of post]

The Cullen-Snyder Framework (v.1.0) Application #004 – ‘Connecticut Representative Naturopathy 2025-07.

Here, the fourth application of the C-S Framework:

001. The Source Documents:

Ah, State of Connecticut induced debt slavery through Title IV...continued.

This single PDF set was titled "Connecticut Representative Naturopathy 2025-07." The contents include:

Pages 2-10 - Connecticut State Law- “Chapter 373 – Naturopathy”
Page 11 - Department of Public Health Naturopathy Page “State Board of Naturopathic Examiners"
Pages 12-22 - Connecticut Healthcare “Rules of Practice”
Pages 23-28 - Connecticut Naturopathic Physicians Association “About”
Pages 29-31 - ND Hunter et al. ‘Homepage’
Pages 32-34 - ND Hunter et al. “Naturopathic Medicine”
Pages 35-40 - ND Tranguch “Naturopathy”
Page 41 - ND Tranguch “Homeopathy”
Page 42-43 - ND Tranguch “Meet Me”
Page 44-51 - ND Tranguch “Dare to Know Homeopathy”

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 was asked:

"Can you apply the attached framework docx to the contents of the attached pdf on Connecticut naturopathy and generate a detailed report? Please itemize the naturopathy science posturing and the science-unsupported contents including those for vitalism and homeopathy. Answer, too, these three questions: Does Connecticut law adequately inform the public about naturopathy's transgressions and hazards? When naturopaths base their activity on a science-ejected vital force / healing power of nature and poorly supported procedures, yet claim science as a basis, what is this usually considered as in terms of commerce and medicine? Does the Connecticut naturopathy scene meet the description of a state-sanctioned, predatory, licensed falsehood?"

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 robust and poignant.

[start of report]

003. The Evaluation Report:

‘Here is the detailed report applying the Cullen-Snyder Framework for Evaluative Analysis of Naturopathy with Regard to Freedom to the contents of the Connecticut naturopathy PDF.

This includes an epistemic audit and freedom impact analysis, along with direct answers to your three evaluative questions.

Cullen-Snyder Evaluation Report on Connecticut Naturopathy

I. Epistemic Audit (Cullen-Based Analysis)

1. Science Camouflage Index (SCI)

The SCI assesses how non-scientific or pseudoscientific content is portrayed as science-based.

Domain	Scientific Basis?	Framed as Scientific?	Notes
Vitalism ("natural healing force")	❌ No	✅ Yes	Central to definition in Sec. 20-34(a); a science-ejected idea.
Homeopathy	❌ No	✅ Yes	Promoted by licensed NDs on pp. 41–51; lacks plausibility and empirical support.
Phytotherapy	⚠️ Partial	✅ Yes	Plant-based treatments vary widely in evidence basis.
Colon Hydrotherapy	❌ No	✅ Yes	Approved for delegation under Sec. 20-42a despite lacking scientific validation.
Electrotherapy/Phototherapy	⚠️ Partial	✅ Yes	Evidence varies by modality; often not supported in context used by NDs.
Mechanotherapy/Articular Manipulation	⚠️ Mixed	✅ Yes	Often overlaps with chiropractic-style interventions.
Diagnostic Authority	⚠️ Partial	✅ Yes	Limited training yet permitted to order diagnostics; risks epistemic overreach.

Summary SCI Score: High

Connecticut naturopathy law and practice show a high level of science camouflage by cloaking discredited and inadequately supported modalities in scientific language.

2. Institutional Legitimacy Score (ILS)

Assesses the extent of institutional endorsement relative to evidence.

State Licensure and Endorsement: Full legal licensure through Chapter 373, with authority to diagnose, treat, and use medical diagnostics.
Educational Requirements: Training from institutions approved by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME)—an entity not recognized by mainstream medical science.
Professional Integration: NDs are overseen by a state board largely composed of NDs (pp. 11, 23–28), reducing external accountability.

Summary ILS Score: Inflated

Despite weak evidentiary foundations for many practices, naturopaths in Connecticut enjoy significant state-sanctioned legitimacy.

II. Freedom Impact Matrix (Snyder-Based Analysis)

Freedom	Evaluation
Sovereignty	Patient autonomy is undermined by misinformation and deceptive framing of pseudoscience as legitimate care.
Unpredictability	Wide treatment variability exists with inconsistent standards, especially across homeopathic and alternative modalities.
Mobility	Licensing fosters market growth and access—but also entrenches pseudoscience as a legal care option.
Factuality	Critical failure. The epistemic basis of naturopathy contradicts factual integrity by promoting refuted ideas like vitalism.
Solidarity	Public trust in medicine is eroded. Scientific community's commitment to collective health is bypassed through state recognition of pseudoscientific modalities.

III. Science-Unsupported Content (Itemized)

A. Explicitly Unscientific:

Vitalism – Defined in law via "support of the body's natural healing processes" (Sec. 20-34), reflecting outdated, falsified notions.
Homeopathy – Entirely discredited; yet central in public materials from NDs (pp. 41, 44–51).
Colon Hydrotherapy – Lacks scientific foundation; included via Sec. 20-42a.
Electro/Phototherapy – Promoted outside evidence-supported boundaries.
Nutritional Detoxes, “Natural Substances” – Often unregulated and misrepresented as therapeutic.

B. Science-Posturing Modalities (Poorly Supported or Misapplied):

Diagnostic Authority – Scientifically grounded tools used by under-qualified personnel.
Phytotherapy, Mechanotherapy, Articular Manipulation – Selective or fringe evidence used to justify sweeping treatment claims.

IV. Evaluative Questions

1. Does Connecticut law adequately inform the public about naturopathy’s transgressions and hazards?

No. There is no substantive consumer warning or disclaimer in Connecticut statutes or regulatory materials acknowledging the pseudoscientific foundations of many naturopathic practices. Instead, the legal structure gives the impression of equivalence with science-based care, which misleads the public.

2. When naturopaths base their activity on a science-ejected vital force / healing power of nature and poorly supported procedures, yet claim science as a basis, what is this usually considered as in terms of commerce and medicine?

It is typically classified as consumer fraud or professional misrepresentation. In medical and regulatory contexts, this blending of pseudoscience with scientific posturing fits definitions of "health fraud" or "quackery", particularly where it induces patients to rely on ineffective treatments.

3. Does the Connecticut naturopathy scene meet the description of a state-sanctioned, predatory, licensed falsehood?

Yes. Connecticut law:

Legitimizes epistemically invalid ideas (vitalism, homeopathy).
Fails to require evidence parity with mainstream medicine.
Shields this structure under licensure, leading to: A licensed, state-endorsed pseudomedical system that misrepresents its scientific legitimacy to the public.

Conclusion

Under the Cullen-Snyder Framework:

Connecticut’s naturopathy licensing system enables epistemic conflation.
It facilitates an erosion of factuality freedom and scientific integrity.
The law, rather than correcting these hazards, embeds them institutionally.

Recommendation

Public policy revision is needed to:

Require explicit disclaimers of non-scientific status.
Enforce evidence-based practice standards.
Protect public liberty through transparency, factuality, and institutional integrity."

[end of report]

004. My Comments on the Report:

It's unpredictability, again, getting roughly interpreted as BAD, but OK...

I've talked about that enough in the previous applications.

[end of post]

Application #004 Accuracy Check via Perplexity

I also did an accuracy check of the ChatGPT Application #004 through Perplexity.

This was a blog post as well.

[start of post]

“Here, a 'check' of the ChatGPT results from Application #004 by way of Perplexity.

001. The question that was applied to the #004 post [was]:

"Can you check the attached document for accuracy?"

002. The Perplexity Answer:

"Absolutely! Let me carefully review your attached text—including the Cullen-Snyder Framework application and the follow-up Q&A—for accuracy against current, authoritative knowledge about U.S. naturopathic licensure, science/legitimacy topics, and regulatory structures as of mid-2025.

Here’s a detailed, section-by-section assessment:

SECTION 1: Summary—The Cullen-Snyder Framework Applied

1. Epistemic Audit & "Science Camouflage Index"

Accuracy:

Vitalism: It is true that Connecticut (and other state) naturopathy laws center their philosophy and practice on "the healing power of nature"/vitalism, a concept that has been rejected by scientific medicine for over a century.
Homeopathy: Remains a core part of most ND training and state scopes (Connecticut included), also universally regarded in mainstream science as disproven.
Phytotherapy, Colon Hydrotherapy, Electro/Phototherapy, Mechanotherapy:

> Phytotherapy (herbalism) does sometimes have an evidence base, but the regulatory standards and actual use by naturopaths often outpace credible science.

> Colon hydrotherapy is not recognized by scientific or mainstream medical authorities as effective and carries risk.

Diagnostic Authority: Naturopaths’ training in diagnostics is not on par with MD/DO standards, yet some states afford them similar authorities; this is correctly labeled "epistemic overreach."

Verdict: Substantially accurate, aligns with consensus critiques (e.g., Science Based Medicine, journals, public policy reviews).

2. Institutional Legitimacy Score (ILS)

Accuracy:

It is factual that the CNME (Council on Naturopathic Medical Education) accredits ND schools, but it is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education for scientific rigor—only for compliance with their own field’s standards.
State licensing boards are often dominated by NDs; mainstream physician input is minimal.
Naturopathy is legitimized institutionally despite weak empirical grounding.

Verdict: Accurate characterization.

SECTION 2: Snyder's "Freedom Impact Matrix"

Accuracy:

The analysis (e.g., patient sovereignty undermined by misinformation, erosion of factuality, etc.) reflects positions found in medical ethics, regulatory analyses, and the skepticism literature.

Solidarity and public trust:

Academic, regulatory, and consumer advocacy sources have consistently warned that licensing non-evidence-based health professions undermines public trust and factual integrity.

Verdict: Accurate representation.

SECTION 3: Itemized Pseudoscientific/Science-Unsupported Content

Accuracy:

Vitalism, Homeopathy, Colon Hydrotherapy—these are, as described, unscientific or extremely weak/unsupported by available evidence.
Diagnostic Authority, Phytotherapy, Mechanotherapy—noted as "partial" or "mixed" support; this nuance is correct.

Verdict: Accurate, especially in reflecting the "science camouflage" phenomenon in state-licensed naturopathy.

SECTION 4: Evaluative Questions

1. Does Connecticut law properly inform the public of hazards/transgressions?

Accuracy:

Connecticut statutes do not require consumer warnings about the lack of scientific basis for most ND practices. Messaging actively frames naturopathy as equivalent to scientific healing.

2. How is this commerce classified (fraud, misrepresentation)?

Accuracy:

In fraud law and consumer protection, misrepresenting unscientific practices as scientific can constitute fraud, but statutory carve-outs for licensed providers generally shield NDs.
Academic analysis (e.g., Jann Bellamy, JAMA, Health Fraud Task Forces) matches this description.

3. Is this a state-sanctioned licensed falsehood?

Accuracy:

"Licensed falsehood" is strong language, but substantively it matches critiques in peer-reviewed publications and policy reviews—that the law legitimizes/preserves epistemic conflation.

Verdict: These responses are strongly supported by evidence from law, regulation, and medical policy critique.

SECTION 5: National Comparison—Other U.S. States

Over two dozen states license naturopaths, granting similar scope and legal protection, despite persistent pseudoscientific curriculum content.
No state/board requires NDs to disclose that core tenets (vitalism, homeopathy) are unaccepted by science.
Regulatory boards essentially shield these practices from fraud prosecution, except for overt billing/money fraud.

Verdict: This accurately reflects the regulatory/legal landscape in the U.S. as of 2024–2025, confirmed by medical, legal, and consumer protection scholarship.

CITATIONS & AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES

Science Based Medicine: Many articles on ND statutory fraud issues
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: "Naturopathy: A Regulatory and Ethical Dilemma"
JAMA (2018, 2022): Skeptical analyses of ND claims and scientific status
Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 373: No required warning/disclaimer for science disparity
David Gorski, Jann Bellamy: On "legislative alchemy" and legal quackery
FTC, FDA: Public advisories against misleading medical claims regularly cite ND homeopathy/vitalism

CONCLUSION

Your document is accurate in its factual claims, conceptual summaries, and regulatory/legal assessments. Its characterization of Connecticut and similar states’ licensing as "science camouflage" and "licensed falsehood" is grounded in mainstream medical, legal, and policy analyses. The structure and content accurately match authoritative medical, ethical, and legal scholarship as of mid-2025."

#005 – BC 2025

And here is a Canada source of sectarian capture.

Here’s the post in full:

[start of post]

“The Cullen-Snyder Framework (v.1.0) Application #005 – ‘British Columbia Naturopathy 2025-08’.

Here, the fifth application of the C-S Framework

001. The Source Documents:

This single PDF set was titled "British Columbia NDs 2025."

The contents include:

"British Columbia Naturopathy 2025 document. Table of Contents:

pp. 2-136 - Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine “2024-2025 Catalog”
pp. 137-138 - Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors “About Naturopathy”
p. 139 - Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors “Who Does What”
pp. 140-145 - British Columbia Naturopathic Doctors “FAQs”
pp. 146-238 - British Columbia “Health Professions Act”
pp. 239-249 - British Columbia “Naturopathic Physicians Regulations”
pp. 250-259 - British Columbia Complementary Health Professionals “Code of Conduct”
pp. 260-263 – ND Tamburic “TCM & Acupuncture”
pp. 264-267 - ND Holewa “Principles”
pp. 268-276 - ND Sraw “Naturopathic Medicine”

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 Perplexity 2025-08:

"Can you apply the attached framework docx to the contents of the attached pdf on British Columbia naturopathy and generate a detailed report? Please itemize the naturopathy science posturing and the science-unsupported contents including those for vitalism and homeopathy. Answer, too, these four questions: Does British Columbia law adequately inform the public about naturopathy's transgressions and hazards? When naturopaths base their activity on a science-ejected vital force / healing power of nature and poorly supported procedures, yet claim science as a basis, what is this usually considered as in terms of commerce and medicine? Does the British Columbia naturopathy scene meet the description of a state-sanctioned, predatory, licensed falsehood? In what ways does naturopathy violate its own code of conduct?"

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 robust and poignant.

[start of report]

003. The Report:

"Application of the Cullen-Snyder Framework to British Columbia Naturopathy

1. Science Posturing and Science-Unsupported Contents

Itemization:

Aspect	Science Posturing	Science-Unsupported / Pseudoscientific Elements
Program Content	Claims to deliver education "rooted in evidence-informed practice" and biomedical sciences.	Integrates vitalism ("healing power of nature"), homeopathy.
Modalities	Includes nutritional advice, physical medicine, some lab diagnostics, lifestyle counseling.	Uses and teaches homeopathy, “energy” balancing, TCM theory, and vital force.
Accreditation	Accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, subject to provincial oversight.	Accreditor and curriculum directly enshrine vitalism, “first, do no harm” underpinned by pseudoscientific theory.
Patient Claims	Uses scientific language: “diagnosis and treatment,” “primary care,” “evidence-informed”.	Emphasis on "self-healing," treatment of "imbalances," and unproven therapies.
Regulation	Licensed under historic and modern health profession acts; must pass pharmacology exams.	Licensing does not screen out science-ejected practices; regulation permits misleading claims.

Examples from the PDF:

Vitalism ("healing power of nature") is enshrined as a core principle: “recognition and support of the inherent self-healing ability of the individual...”.
Homeopathy is deeply integrated in both education and clinical application, including practical case management and prescribing.
Traditional Chinese Medicine/Acupuncture: taught as equivalent to biomedical modalities, despite limited scientific plausibility for foundational concepts.
Physical Manipulation, “energy balance,” and botanical remedies are integrated without robust scientific support for claimed efficacy in many cases.

2. Cullen-Snyder Framework Table: British Columbia Naturopathy

Freedom Dimension	Naturopathy Evaluation in British Columbia
Sovereignty	High patient autonomy for choosing ND care; elevated risk of decisions based on misinformation (e.g., pseudoscience) due to science posturing.
Unpredictability	Substantial variability in diagnostics/treatments; therapies range from regulated (nutrition) to unregulated (homeopathy). Inconsistency in scientific standards.
Mobility	Broad access (over 700 NDs), alternative to MDs; but may funnel patients away from evidence-based care for serious conditions.
Factuality	At the regulatory and educational levels, factual disclosure compromised by use of language implying scientific legitimacy for unproven methods.
Solidarity	Community health at risk when population-level decisions are influenced by non-evidence-based approaches; possible downstream harms via vaccine hesitancy, alternative cancer care, etc.

3. British Columbia Law and Public Information

Does British Columbia law adequately inform the public about naturopathy’s transgressions and hazards?

The law establishes licensure, education, and a code of conduct, framing naturopaths as primary care providers equal or similar to MDs. The Health Professions Act and regulatory websites do not explicitly warn the public about the scientific limitations or hazards of core naturopathic modalities, nor do they signal that vitalism and homeopathy are rejected by mainstream science. Instead, language throughout licensure, regulation, and public-facing documents reinforces the impression of legitimacy and scientific credibility—despite the inclusion of pseudoscientific content. Thus, the law fails to adequately inform the public of the risks, scientific controversies, or transgressions inherent to the field.

4. Science-Ejected Claims and Professional Commerce

When naturopaths base their activity on a science-ejected vital force / healing power of nature, and poorly supported procedures, yet claim science as a basis, what is this considered in commerce and medicine?

This pattern is typically described as fraudulent misrepresentation, quackery, and/or false advertising in commerce, and as pseudomedicine in the medical context. Shifting language from “philosophy” to “science-based” without robust evidence is recognized as a commercial deception, especially when vulnerable consumers make health decisions under the impression of scientific rigor.

5. Is BC Naturopathy a State-Sanctioned Predatory Licensed Falsehood?

A “state-sanctioned, predatory, licensed falsehood” is defined as an entity that —

is licensed by the state,
predates on vulnerable clients,
misrepresents its scientific basis or efficacy,
is permitted or even promoted by health authorities.

In British Columbia:

Naturopaths are state-licensed under health acts, regulated, and permitted to call themselves primary care doctors.
Core modalities depend on discredited theories (vitalism, homeopathy), yet are legal, taught, and promoted as “evidence-informed,” i.e., the “science washing” or science posturing cited above.
The law and public materials do not warn consumers about the lack of evidence or potential harms for serious health conditions managed outside medical standard-of-care.
This matches the description of a “licensed falsehood” supported by the state, with potential predatory risk for patients seeking care outside conventional medicine.

6. Ways Naturopathy Violates Its Own Code of Conduct

Ethical/Code Provision	Apparent Violation
Do no harm	Endorsing unproven therapies for major health conditions (e.g., cancer, infections).
Educate patients honestly	Implying scientific legitimacy of science-ejected concepts (vitalism, homeopathy, TCM).
Honesty and integrity	Marketing “science-based” approaches, but providing therapies lacking science.
Respect for patient autonomy	Autonomy conditional on receipt of accurate, comprehensible information (which is lacking).
Competence and excellence	Defining “competence” in part by mastery of pseudoscientific modalities.
Public health and welfare	Redirection of patients from standard-of-care treatments, promotion of vaccine hesitancy, etc.

In summary: the code’s call for integrity, competence, patient-centered, and “best available treatments” is undermined when foundational program elements are based on pseudoscience, yet represented as legitimate, evidence-based care.

Conclusion

Using the Cullen-Snyder Framework, the British Columbia naturopathy system demonstrates science posturing (claiming evidence-based practice, invoking biomedical terminology), while simultaneously enshrining, teaching, and practicing modalities (vitalism, homeopathy) that are directly contradicted by the scientific consensus. Regulation and law fail to signal hazards, instead conferring undue legitimacy, such that the system meets the definition of a state-sanctioned, licensed falsehood that contravenes both public expectations and its own ethical code."

[end of report]

004. And:

So, Applications #001-004 were accomplished with ChatGPT. This one, Application #005, was done through Perplexity. 004's ChatGPT report was checked with Perplexity. Inverting that, in checking this #005 with ChatGPT, ChatGPT summarized its accuracy check as:

‘The content [PDF] appears internally consistent and factually aligned with the kind of analysis it claims to be — a Cullen-Snyder framework application to British Columbia naturopathy. The document’s claims about vitalism, homeopathy, and other modalities being 'science-ejected' or lacking scientific plausibility are consistent with the mainstream scientific consensus [...and ChatGPT's external fact check with what can be found online includes the language] Claim: Homeopathy and vitalism are 'science-ejected' / lack mainstream scientific plausibility and thus are pseudoscientific. Verdict: Supported as a characterization of mainstream scientific consensus.’”

[end of post]

A Last Task for Summarization.

So, to tighten these five Applications as results, a last task for this Episode 016 Part 1 in terms of the AI-LLMs was to have Perplexity:

“Create a description of and recommendations for the behavior of naturopathy, naturopaths, and related institutions based on the attached Application Reports pdf that would survive and satisfy the stringency of the attached Framework docx.”

The description, which needed honed through a follow-up question to get better focus, of naturopathy as a phenomenon in a single paragraph, is:

“Naturopathy, as currently institutionalized in jurisdictions such as the United States and Canada, is characterized by a persistent and fundamental blending of scientific language and academic signaling with modalities like vitalism, homeopathy, and ‘healing power of nature’ that lack credible empirical support; this ‘science camouflage’ confuses patients and the public by presenting pseudoscience as legitimate healthcare. Despite academic affiliations, state licensure, and curricula structured to mimic biomedical rigor, naturopathic programs and practice routinely promote and integrate discredited or poorly evidenced therapies alongside genuine scientific education, undermining scientific integrity, informed consent, and public health. Regulatory oversight and ethical codes often fail to clearly distinguish science-based from belief-based care, enabling a state-sanctioned system where consumer protection is compromised, freedom of choice is eroded by misinformation, and unproven claims are legally shielded from critical scrutiny - conditions under which the distinction between professional health care and licensed deception is dangerously blurred.”

Go on…

And granularly, the summery of reports recommends:

“To align the behavior of naturopathy, naturopaths, and their institutions with the Cullen-Snyder Framework’s requirements for epistemic integrity and freedom, the following recommendations should be implemented:

1. Clear Epistemic Delineation

Segregate content in educational and promotional materials: All modalities and claims must be clearly classified and labeled as either science-supported (e.g., with consistent RCT validation) or traditional/theoretical/experience-based.
Mandate explicit disclaimers: When evidence is lacking or theoretical frameworks (e.g., vitalism, healing power of nature) are discussed, these must be accompanied by visible disclaimers stating their non-scientific status.

2. Transparent Institutional and Regulatory Structures

Require interdisciplinary oversight: Curricula and practice scopes should be vetted by panels including independent medical scientists, ethicists, and philosophers—not only internal stakeholders.
Revise licensure and public information: State and provincial laws should abandon scientific equivalence claims for non-scientific modalities and publicly disclose limitations, hazards, and evidentiary gaps of naturopathic practices.

3. Critical Thinking and Science Literacy Emphasis

Integrate mandatory critical thinking modules in naturopathic education, specifically addressing how to appraise the claims of alternative and complementary medicine.
Empower both practitioners and patients to distinguish between science-based and belief-based care, supporting Snyder’s “positive freedom” by ensuring choices are made with access to factual, unambiguous information.

4. Reassessment and Oversight of Scope of Practice

Restrict scope for non-science-based methods: Laws and ethical codes should prohibit characterizing or advertising any unvalidated modality as “primary care” or “equivalent to science-based medicine”.
Regular external audits: Establish and enforce periodic reviews of institutions and practitioners for compliance with science communication standards and truthful advertising.

5. Prioritizing Public Health and Consumer Protection

Explicitly inform and protect the public: Regulatory and professional bodies must inform consumers of the limits of naturopathic medicine and proscribe commercial misrepresentation. This includes enforcing transparency requirements and penalty structures for breaches.
Reject state-sanctioned pseudoscience: Institutional behavior that systematically promotes unscientific concepts or blends them into regulatory or educational policy must be reformed to align with public expectations and evidence standards.

By rigorously adopting these recommendations, the practice and oversight of naturopathy can begin to meet the twin requirements of truth-in-knowledge and genuine freedom of choice that the Cullen-Snyder Framework demands.”

Hear, hear.

A follow-up to that mighty summary was the question:

“In what specific ways is the state of Connecticut failing its citizenry in these matters?”

And the answer included this broad statement:

“Connecticut’s failures are rooted in a lack of transparent, science-based regulation, inadequate consumer protection, and persistent conflation of science and pseudoscience within both licensing and public information, all of which fundamentally betray the state’s duty to safeguard public health, truth in healthcare, and the informed freedom of its citizens.”

Now, the other players involved in this in a major way are the Connecticut healthcare professions' stakeholders who participate in advising the Connecticut on naturopathy.

They are, basically, inured to the failures.

But what’s really disgusting is that these failures, on an individual stakeholder basis, would not be tolerated within their own particular domains.

Get then together, though, and its a race to the bottom in terms of the charity they afford the naturopathillogical.

Now I’m not going to just accept all that, so a second follow-up question to Perplexity was:

“Are there any usual strategies that an informed but poorly resourced citizen of the State of Connecticut can do to assist in remedying this situation?”

The answer:

“An informed but poorly resourced citizen of Connecticut can still play a constructive role in remedying the state’s problematic licensing and regulation of naturopathy by focusing on low-cost, grassroots, and advocacy-driven strategies aimed at increasing public awareness, pressing for transparency, and engaging democratic processes.”

Now I also wanted an impression from what was described of the State of Connecticut’s values in this matter, so a final third follow-up question to Perplexity was:

“Using all these answers concerning naturopathy which were based on the Reports pdf and the Framework docx, construct a profile of the State of Connecticut's ethical positions or values characteristics toward its citizenry, education, personal belief versus science fact, and consumer rights as evidenced.”

The answer:

“Connecticut’s approach to naturopathy, as analyzed through the Cullen-Snyder Framework and the detailed application reports, reveals a set of ethical positions and values characteristics that prioritize institutional accommodation of alternative health philosophies over the protection of scientific integrity, informed consent, and robust consumer rights […]

Toward Citizenry and Public Trust

• Delegation of Responsibility: Connecticut positions itself as a neutral facilitator, granting professional legitimacy and legal licensure to naturopaths without imposing rigorous evidence-based standards. This signals a value in “choice” or market pluralism, but in practice it elevates institutional trust in professional status above the state’s responsibility to prevent misinformation or public deception.

• Tolerance of Misinformation: The licensing and regulation of practitioners offering empirically unsupported modalities (homeopathy, vitalism, detoxes, etc.) indicate a willingness to permit, and even support, the embedding of pseudoscience within public life, with little regard for the downstream consequences for citizens’ factual knowledge or health outcomes.

Toward Education and Science Literacy

• Epistemic Ambiguity in Health Education: By allowing accredited educational programs to blend scientific and pseudoscientific content without required critical distinctions, Connecticut demonstrates a tolerance - or lack of concern - for critical thinking deficits and science literacy erosion among students and practitioners. The value placed on “professional development” here is undermined by the lack of epistemic safeguards or mandatory transparent labeling of non-scientific content.

• Institutional Endorsement Without Integrity: Academic legitimacy is conferred based on program structure and credentialing, not on content validity, signaling a relativistic or indifferent attitude toward the quality control of health-related knowledge provided to students and disseminated to the public as fact.

Personal Belief versus Science Fact

• Equivalence of Belief and Empirical Evidence: The state’s statutes and regulatory practices equate or even preference personal or professional belief systems with established science, codifying in law various “vital force” and “self-healing” doctrines as if they are scientifically established.

• Neglect of Factuality Freedom and Informed Consent: By not requiring public warnings, disclaimers, or clear scientific labeling of services and educational content, Connecticut privileges freedom of belief and commerce over the right of citizens to access accurate, actionable health information grounded in scientific consensus - thus undermining the ethical principle of informed consent.

Consumer Rights and Protection

• Regulatory Laxity and Legal Immunity: The structure of licensure shields providers from accountability to external, evidence-based medical standards, effectively protecting unproven methods so long as they are approved by the naturopathic board. Thus, consumer rights to accurate, non-deceptive health information are deprioritized in favor of professional self-regulation and statutory loopholes.

• Absence of Meaningful Recourse: While legal action is possible in cases of outright financial fraud, there is no mechanism for redress in cases of scientific misrepresentation or health fraud as conventionally defined, denoting an ethical system in which consumer protection from misinformation is nonessential unless it involves financial impropriety.

Summary Table

Domain	Profiled Ethical/Value Orientation
Citizenry/Public Trust	Institutional trust prioritized over factual protection; tolerance of deception
Education/Science Literacy	Acceptance of epistemic ambiguity; lack of science literacy safeguards
Belief vs. Science Fact	Elevation of belief and tradition to scientific status in law and practice
Consumer Rights	Professional self-regulation over consumer protection; limited legal recourse

Connecticut’s system, in effect, condones institutionalized misinformation and epistemic blending, prioritizing professional inclusion and belief-pluralism over the ethical imperatives of scientific accuracy, informed consent, and the defense of consumer rights in healthcare.”

And such observations leave me with the taste of 1984 in my mouth.

Conclusion

While I’m in a mode of reflection, in part, in this Episode 016, I had in the Naturocrit Podcast Episode 006b - published in 2015, so ten years ago - revisited my 2006 piece "The Epistemic Conflation of a School of Thought Claiming to be Scientific."

In that Episode, I stated, in conclusion:

“I must say I am even more convinced about my position regarding naturopathy since 2006's publication […] as I have ‘educated myself' further along this 20-year harmful course that naturopathy induced me into. I highly enjoy how Canada's Committee for Advancement of Scientific Skepticism [of Canada’s Center for Inquiry] has written that naturopathy is a ‘failed medieval paradigm.’”

Let’s add another 10 years to those sentiments: ‘even more even more convinced about my position’ regarding naturopathy’s ‘failed medieval paradigm.’

But, who am I: just a medieval peasant in the eyes of my state government, particularly.

For this Episode 016 part 1, it is obvious that I find the new AI-LLMs interesting as a tool in the sense of text computation much like Excel computes numerically, minimally.

It may sound strange, and I have to mention it because it really resonates in terms of the AI-LLM modeling, I’m very much reminded of the excitement I had in my early teens when I had my first computer.

It was a Commodore PET 3000 or 4000 series, I can’t specifically remember [I think is is the one].

Using consumer magazines for the sector, I eventually began writing in BASIC and creating these choose your own adventure narratives wherein the player basically walked down a path and then had to choose an action.

Regarding the AI-LLMs, overall, perhaps therein, it is important to be a maker, to be ‘at the wheel’, to be the chooser.

It is important to have freedom for.

As the mid-1960s Ewan MacColl song Ballad of Accounting goes:

“Did they teach you how to question when you were at the school?

Did the factory help you grow?

Were you the maker or the tool? […]

Did you kiss the foot that kicked you?

Did you thank them for their scorn?

Did you ask [them] for their forgiveness for the act of being born?

Did you stand there in the traces and let them feed you lies?

Did you trail along behind them wearing blinkers on your eyes?”

As a teacher, I hope I’m not most remember by my students for the information I shared but for the questions I asked, in the sense of broadly modeling ‘interrogatives’.

As Snyder writes regarding questions in On Freedom in the section Rationalizing Zombies:

“As we engage with the digital world, we grow comfortable with the how questions, the inhuman ones, and we find awkward the why questions, the human ones involving judgments about good and evil.

We phrase how questions in terms of ‘efficiency,’ ‘maximization,’ and ‘optimization.’

The idiom of productivity is senseless in itself; it can be meaningful only when we know what we value.

No notion of means-ends rationality (if you value a, you should do b) coheres without a value judgment; no amount of how can get you to why […]

Our thinkers can help us resist predictability.

Stein argued that bodily empathy leads us toward reasonability [oops, I say 'responsibility' in the audio].

Weil [say Vey] [spelled W-e-i-l, I think that's the proper French pronunciation] made the case that our corporeality allows us to ask the important questions.

Kolakowski said that human existence is about pushing beyond the edge of a predictable world into one that is not.

Havel [oops, I say 'Havall'] warned that we can be tempted into thinking like machines, or even into thinking that we are machines.

All of them insisted on the why, on the search for the ‘world of values’ [p. 97]."

My ‘agency’ aspect of the process, as maker, as wheel-turner, as interrogator in the positive sense [not to pun, but punning anyway] is defining the initial parameters - what must be done and to what, and the end form - and then evaluating the outcome based on, well, everything.

The reports don’t feel gamed or pandering, but every process has its drawbacks and liabilities.

Even one year ago, I would not have imagined the quality of the outputs that are computationally possible.

I’m not sure, though, what it portends for the human mind.

One major problem now - that I think will become a juggernaut of an issue for the future, based on the present and future capabilities of the AI-LLMs improperly used - is falsely postured journal articles that pose scientific processes and findings though it is all manufactured digitally and never actually happened.

The technology section of The Atlantic recently published “I’m a High Schooler. AI Is Demolishing My Education. The End of Critical Thinking in the Classroom. By Ashanty Rosario” at theatlantic.com September 2025, wherein were’ told such things as:

“[In observing a classmate using AI inappropriately during classroom time] What was meant to be a reflective, thought-provoking discussion on slavery and human resilience was flattened into copy-paste commentary.”

Not good for freedom, literally.

We’ll have to see where this all goes.

It’s up to us.

Also, and I hate to sound misanthropic, but…

People are lazy, distracted, egoistic, superficial…quite often.

I’ll admit that that’s a sort of a pop culture cumulative observation of mine, which may be, indeed, me rebelling against the preferred and offered role-modelling of our present age by, particularly, the corpos and the oligos.

As in lower-case corporate interests and oligarchs.

We seem to just adopt things without concern for human costs – negative freedom in-itself; as it is spooned to us, we consume -- of shallow memories and docile responses in these times of greater and greater attention high jacking, intellectual degradation, and self-shackling.

So, I actually don’t think the AI-LLMs are replacing human intellect.

It may be replacing the potential for human intellect that social conditions really don’t and won’t particularly let arise, in any way, in a broad way.

And it’s getting worse.

A September 2025 article in The Conversation by Brian W. Stone titled “How Does AI Affect How We Learn? A Cognitive Psychologist Explains Why You Learn When the Work is Hard” concluded:

“The temptation of using default-mode AI to avoid hard work will continue to be a more fundamental and classic problem of teaching, course design and motivating students to avoid shortcuts that undermine their cognitive workout. As with other complex technologies such as smartphones, the internet or even writing itself, it will take more time for researchers to fully understand the true range of AI’s effects on cognition and learning. In the end, the picture will likely be a nuanced one that depends heavily on context and use case.”

More broadly, a September 2025 NPR article reported “A New Nation's Report Card Shows Drops in Science, Math and Reading Scores.”

We will have to decide what we value in order to create the means toward true learning experiences.

I wouldn’t have experienced what I experienced – per naturopathy educationally and as a profession – and continue along this demonically ruined life course due to that wicked shit’s effects, if human intellect and great values were engaged and cultivated in the first place.

But, to be symbolic, and rather dark, we are living under Lord Foul’s Sunbane.

And the beauty of the Sunbane, in a horror sense, is that its victims feed the Banefire thinking they are mitigating the Sunbane, but what they are really doing is perpetuating their own oppression [checked].

Yet, the Sunbane along with Lord Foul were defeated.

This is the end of Part 1 of Episode 016.

Thank you for boldly listening.

naturocrit

Monday, September 15, 2025

The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 016a [s02e06a] Script and Annotations

No comments:

About Me

Facebook Badge