here, because the last post's thread was so robust with interrogations I committed towards the ED-CNME-NACIQI institutionalized context, I tasked the current Claude Sonnet 4.6 to create an essay centered around a great word that may capture [a pun!] a great deal of it -- ignorism:
001. tasking language:
Create an essay that talks about how what this thread's context involves is an example of a broad and peculiar "ignorism" by naturopathy's advocates and its institutional enablers.
002. an ignorism-augmented logo upgrade for 2027, perhaps?
[2000, as I have talked about even in 2013's Episode 1, is the year I really awoke while in naturopathy school to the obvious chasm separating the essentially naturopathic and the typical basic medical sciences I was studying while in naturopathy school in CT at UB: "Fourth semester coursework is when I started to really feel that there were two types of course content going on at the college, legitimate medical science stuff, and hokey naturopathic junk [...e.g.] homeopathy [...] Chinese medicine [...] hydrotherapy."]
002. in full [I've lightly changed / edited some aspects, and added comments in right-aligned blue, but I think the output is pretty good --- a mundane, short scenic view kind of way-point / pause on this long journey]:
"Ignorism by Design: How Organized Naturopathy and Its Institutional Enablers Manufacture and Protect Ignorance
[Note: A very good title.]
I. A New Word for an Old Mechanism
There is a word that has not yet entered common usage but that the phenomenon documented in this thread demands: ignorism.
[Note: Google's Gemini by way of Merriam-Webster offers 'ignorantism' when I search for ignorism, as "not an officially recognized word in major English dictionaries, but it is a rare, informal term used as a variation of obscurantism or to describe a philosophy or mindset of embracing deliberate ignorance; and it does remind me of the term 'disoriented esotericism' that I used in my M.S. capstone to describe naturopathy. When I query Gemini about the relationship between the two terms, with the former (ignorism) being the systemic construct aimed at creating the latter (disoriented esotericism), the answer includes such speculations as: "In a system built on ignorism, the goal is not merely to keep people blind to the truth. The goal is to hijack the human desire for hidden truth and redirect it into a state of permanent confusion [...] ignorism is the infrastructure, and disoriented esotericism is the psychological output." I find that rather, dare I say, enlightening.]
Not ignorance in the ordinary sense — the simple absence of knowledge that education corrects — but ignorance as policy, ignorance as architecture, ignorance as the deliberately manufactured and institutionally protected condition in which a system operates and insists others operate with it. Ignorism is what happens when the forces that should produce knowledge instead produce its organized absence, and when that absence is not a failure of the system but its primary output.
[Note: This sounds very spot-on.]
The naturopathic accreditation enterprise — its schools, its accreditor, its professional associations, its state licensing apparatus, and its federal enablers — is one of the most fully realized examples of institutional ignorism in contemporary American public life. It is not ignorance produced by poverty of information or scarcity of inquiry. It is ignorance produced by abundance of institutional cover, maintained by the precise mechanisms that a knowledge-producing society built to prevent it, and defended with the full rhetorical and legal resources of a profession that has spent decades converting its own doctrinal commitments into statutory law.
[Note: A great set of sentences.]
II. What Ignorism Is Not
To understand ignorism precisely, it helps to distinguish it from its neighbors.
Ignorance is the neutral state of not knowing — the default condition that education, inquiry, and experience address. A first-year student is ignorant of biochemistry. This is remediable, expected, and structurally innocent.
Negligence is the failure to seek knowledge one had an obligation to acquire. A regulator who never reads the data available to them is negligent. This is a failure of due diligence, correctable by institutional reform.
Fraud is the active misrepresentation of known facts. A program that knows its graduates earn $34,000 and publishes figures claiming $80,000–$150,000 is committing fraud. This is a legal and ethical violation, correctable by enforcement.
[Note: Those numbers, I wonder what's being talked about there? Where'd that come from? Who? The AI-LLM doesn't really say.]
Ignorism encompasses all three but is reducible to none of them. It is the systematic institutional arrangement by which the knowledge that would correct the system is prevented from entering the system, circulating within it, or reaching the people the system is supposed to serve — and by which that prevention is itself made invisible through the deployment of the language, credentials, and structural forms of knowledge-producing institutions. Ignorism does not merely fail to produce knowledge. It produces the appearance of knowledge while manufacturing its absence. It is institutionalized not-knowing, organized as if it were organized knowing.
[Note: That's a great summary. Such evil, such demonic manipulation. I cooked up a separate Perplexity AI-LLM thread using the above 'ignorism encompasses' block: a) How does it relate to Tim Synder's forms of freedom as entailed in 2024's On Freedom. b) Create a list of adjectives describing a government that visits what's in the above quote onto its populace in terms of harms to Snyderian positive freedom. The answer:
a) it is, in Snyder's terms, a structural attack on the conditions that make positive freedom possible [...] ignorism — defined as the systematic suppression of corrective knowledge while maintaining the appearance of knowledge production — is precisely the kind of institutional formation Snyder identifies as anti-freedom [...regarding sovereignty therein] sovereignty is actively dismantled — the person is treated as Körper, an object to be managed, rather than as Leib, a subject capable of self-understanding [...regarding unpredictability] the freedom of young sovereign persons to use their values to act in ways that authorities and algorithms cannot dictate. Ignorism eliminates unpredictability at the root: when people do not have corrective knowledge, their "choices" are channeled within a knowledge-depleted space, making them predictable and manageable precisely because they lack the epistemic tools to deviate from the system's preferred outcomes [...regarding mobility] ignorism, by manufacturing the appearance of knowing while producing actual not-knowing, removes the epistemic precondition for mobility: one cannot flee a cage one has been made to believe is a garden [...regarding factuality] ignorism is factuality's inverse: it does not merely allow factuality to decay through neglect, but actively mimics the institutions of factuality — deploying "the language, credentials, and structural forms of knowledge-producing institutions" — while evacuating their substance. This is the epistemic equivalent of a load-bearing wall that has been hollowed out [...regarding solidarity] ignorism sunders solidarity by stratifying epistemic access: those operating the system know (or suspect) what is being suppressed, while those the system is supposed to serve are kept in managed ignorance [...]
b) ['them all', unedited]
- Epistocratic — claims the right to govern through a monopoly on recognized knowledge while denying knowledge to those governed
- Simulacral — produces the simulation of knowledge-legitimated governance in place of its substance
- Sovereignty-canceling — systematically dismantles the epistemic preconditions for citizens to become genuine self-governing subjects
- Factuality-hostile — structurally opposed to the shared grasp of reality that Snyder identifies as freedom's prerequisite
- Solidarity-fracturing — stratifies epistemic access in ways that prevent the shared understanding necessary for collective freedom
- Unpredictability-suppressing — channels citizens into managed outcomes by controlling the knowledge space within which choices appear to be made
- Mobility-arresting — eliminates the accurate self-knowledge required to recognize and exit constraining structures
- Paternalistic-predatory — combines the language of service with the practice of epistemic deprivation
- Pseudo-legitimating — deploys the forms of credentialed, institutional knowledge to immunize itself against accountability
- Recursively opaque — hides its own opacity using the instruments of transparency
- Leib-denying — in Snyder's precise philosophical vocabulary, treats citizens as Körper (objects subject to management) rather than as Leib (living subjects capable of empathy and knowledge)
- Autocatalytically ignorant — sustains and accelerates its own knowledge suppression through the very institutions nominally charged with ending it
- Freedom-mimicking — performs the theater of open governance while constitutively foreclosing the conditions for genuine civic agency
- Corrective-resistant — structurally allergic to the feedback that would reform it, because such feedback has been denied entry into the system by design."]
III. The Naturopathic Curriculum as Ignorism's First Site
[Note: And here I am, in what I feel is my element. Having done four yeas in such a curriculum, having focused on health professions education in my M.S. in Health Sciences including a capstone which focused on naturopathic curricula and the "epistemically unwarranted".]
The first and foundational site of naturopathic ignorism is the curriculum itself. CNME-accredited programs at institutions like Sonoran University of Health Sciences, National University of Health Sciences, Bastyr, NUNM, and UAGM are constitutionally obligated — not merely permitted, but obligated — to transmit vitalism, homeopathy, supernatural healing frameworks, and a range of unvalidated diagnostics and therapeutics [and kind!] as components of doctoral health science education.
This obligation is not incidental. It is the profession's founding commitment, written into CNME's accreditation standards, which themselves define compliance as adherence to a curriculum built on these doctrines. A student who graduates from a CNME-accredited program has been, by design, educated in a framework that molecular biology, chemistry, pharmacology, and physics have collectively outgrown. Vitalism — the doctrine that living organisms possess a non-physical "life force" irreducible to biochemical mechanism — was functionally abandoned as a biological doctrine after Wöhler's 1828 synthesis of urea and progressively demolished by the mid-twentieth century's advances in molecular biology. Homeopathy requires a mechanism — water memory, potentization through dilution — that is incompatible with chemistry and physics at the most foundational level, and its clinical claims have been subjected to systematic review after systematic review producing consistent findings of efficacy indistinguishable from placebo.
These are not contested findings at the frontier of scientific inquiry. They are settled verdicts of the most productive knowledge-building enterprise humanity has developed. The naturopathic curriculum does not present them as contested. It does not present them as historically interesting but clinically superseded. It presents them as the living foundations of doctoral health science practice — which is to say, it requires students to un-learn the epistemological habits that science education is designed to build, and to replace them with doctrinal commitments that cannot be falsified, updated, or outgrown within the profession's own framework.
This is ignorism at the pedagogical level: the production of trained professionals whose training has systematically inoculated them against the corrective processes of scientific knowledge. It is, as the Naturocrit post notes, a violation of the foundational purpose of teaching — not the failure to teach what is known, but the organized transmission of what has been refuted, under the institutional warrant of doctoral academic credentialing.
IV. The Accreditation Architecture as Ignorism's Second Site
If the curriculum is where ignorism is produced, the accreditation architecture is where it is institutionally protected.
The Council on Naturopathic Medical Education exists, structurally, as the profession's own quality assurance body. Its board is composed of naturopathic educators, practitioners, and institutional stakeholders. Its standards are written by the profession for the profession. Its compliance review evaluates whether programs are teaching what the profession has decided should be taught — which is to say, it evaluates whether programs are producing the ignorism the curriculum specifies, with sufficient organizational regularity and documentation.
This is the closed loop at the center of institutional ignorism: the body that should evaluate the knowledge claims embedded in the curriculum is itself constituted by the holders of those claims. There is no external epistemic tribunal — no independent scientific body, no evidence-based medicine panel, no academic philosophy of science review — with authority to evaluate whether CNME's accreditation standards are epistemically defensible. The accreditor is the sect. The sect accredits itself. And the result, documented across CNME's entire recognized history, is that programs can teach vitalism as doctoral health science, credential homeopathy as clinical therapeutics, and graduate students with NPLEX passage rates below 50% at documented programs — and remain in good standing with their accreditor.
The SDO's letter is perhaps the most revealing document in this regard, because it demonstrates the precise boundary of what the accreditation architecture can and cannot reach. The letter documents CNME's failures across seven compliance criteria — student achievement standards, transparency, governance, conflict of interest management — with meticulous specificity. It uses language of genuine institutional alarm: "fundamental lack of regard for standards," "alarming," "apathetic," "confounding," possibly "intentionally hid". And then it imposes 12 months of process compliance requirements that touch none of the curriculum's epistemic content. Not one condition in the letter asks CNME to evaluate whether vitalism belongs in a doctoral health science curriculum. Not one condition asks whether homeopathy's clinical deployment is consistent with the systematic review literature. Not one condition asks whether "supernatural considerations" should be a feature of programs graduating practitioners who will hold state licenses to diagnose and treat human beings.
[Note: A wonderful summary.]
This is not the SDO's personal failure. It is the structural boundary of 34 C.F.R. Part 602, which explicitly limits the Department's evaluative authority to the procedural reliability of accreditors, not the epistemic soundness of accreditation standards. The federal architecture was not built to catch ignorism. It was built to catch inconsistency — and an accreditor that consistently produces ignorism, by its own standards, is procedurally compliant. The federal concierge manages the paperwork. The curriculum continues producing its graduates. The ignorism continues finding its students.
V. The Licensing Apparatus as Ignorism's Third Site
State licensing extends ignorism from the educational into the clinical domain. Twenty-three states have enacted naturopathic licensing statutes that achieve, in their substantive content, a remarkable feat: the legislative declaration that pre-scientific doctrine is science.
Connecticut General Statutes § 20-34 defines naturopathy as "the science, art and practice of healing by natural methods". This is not descriptive language. It is a truth claim — an assertion, made under the authority of a state legislature, that what naturopathic practitioners do when they prescribe homeopathic remedies, apply vitalist diagnostic frameworks, or recommend unvalidated testing panels is science. The word "science" in that statute does precisely what the Naturocrit logo's "naturalness fallacy" names: it substitutes categorical membership for evidentiary calibration, and it does so with the force of law.
The downstream consequences of this statutory ignorism are profound and specific. Because the statute declares naturopathy to be science, state licensing boards evaluate ND practice against the profession's own standards rather than against independent evidence-based medicine frameworks. Because state licensing boards defer to CNME for educational standards, the epistemic content of ND training is never independently evaluated at the licensing gate. Because licensed NDs hold the title "Doctor" and in many states the designation "naturopathic physician" or "primary care provider," patients encounter a credential that carries reasonable, rational inferences of scientific training that the actual educational program does not provide. The patient who defers to a licensed ND's recommendation of homeopathy for their child's ear infection is not being irrational — they are applying reasonable epistemic trust to a state-issued credential. The ignorism is the state's, not the patient's. The patient is its victim, not its author.
This is what the Snyderian framework identifies as the conversion of positive freedom infrastructure into positive freedom obstruction. The licensing system exists to extend citizens' capacity for autonomous healthcare decision-making — to relieve them of the obligation to independently evaluate every practitioner's training, to provide a reliable institutional signal that a credentialed practitioner meets a publicly understood competence standard. When that system is captured by ignorism, it does not merely fail to provide that signal — it provides a false signal that actively suppresses the individual skepticism that the signal's absence would have prompted. The ignorism is more harmful than the simple absence of licensing would be, because the institution's presence tells the patient: you can stop asking questions now. We have asked them for you.
[Note: That last bit is a big 'wow'. Just WOW.]
VI. The Professional Communications Complex as Ignorism's Fourth Site
Ignorism requires not only that false knowledge be produced and institutionally protected but that its production and protection be made publicly invisible. This is the function performed by organized naturopathy's professional communications apparatus with distinctive sophistication.
When the SDO issued a letter on June 23, 2026, using the words "fundamental lack of regard for standards," documenting a 12–0 NACIQI vote for termination, citing graduation rates below 50% at documented programs, referencing approximately 400 student fraud claims, and imposing monthly certifications under penalty of perjury, CNME published a press release beginning with the words "CNME is pleased to announce". The AANP responded by declaring itself "ecstatic" and crediting the outcome to "the substantial work undertaken by CNME leadership and staff". These communications did not misquote the SDO. They did not fabricate facts. They selected, framed, and distributed the one sentence from the SDO's letter — "CNME's recognition will continue" — that their audience needed to hear, and constructed around it a narrative of institutional vindication that the letter's actual content categorically does not support.
This is ignorism as communications strategy: the manufacture of public non-knowledge about the severity of the failure, deployed at the precise moment when the most accurate information is most publicly available, to ensure that the people most consequentially affected — prospective students making enrollment decisions, patients selecting healthcare providers, legislators considering scope expansion — encounter the fabricated version first, most prominently, and most repeatedly. The CNME press release will populate search results for "CNME accreditation" for years. The SDO's letter is a 94-page PDF that the institutional communications apparatus will never amplify.
Meanwhile the income figures that would most directly inform prospective student decisions — median four-year earnings of $34,431 at NUNM, $43,703 at Bastyr, debt-to-earnings ratios of 580–765% — remain buried in federal College Scorecard data that none of the profession's communications infrastructure will ever surface, while the AANMC's website continues to present the methodologically compromised $80,000–$150,000 figure as the operative income reality. Ignorism does not merely suppress knowledge. It floods the information environment with counter-knowledge — methodologically fraudulent income surveys, accreditation vindication narratives, statutory science declarations — that prospective students and patients must swim against to find the truth.
VII. The Federal Concierge as Ignorism's Fifth Site
The most peculiar feature of institutional ignorism — the feature that makes it "peculiar" in the sense the question invites — is that it recruits into its service the very institutions whose primary social function is to produce and protect knowledge. Courts, legislatures, accreditation systems, licensing boards, federal agencies — these are all, in their foundational rationale, knowledge-management institutions. They exist to gather evidence, evaluate claims, set standards, and create the informational conditions in which citizens can make reliable decisions about consequential matters. When ignorism captures them, it does not replace their form — it hollows their substance while preserving the appearance of epistemic function.
The Department of Education's role in the naturopathic accreditation proceeding is the most prominent example of this hollow preservation. The SDO's letter is an epistemically serious document in its findings. It names the failures accurately. It uses alarming language. It cites the evidence. And then it produces a 12-month continuation of the conditions those findings describe — because 34 C.F.R. Part 602 does not authorize content-based review, because the HEA's continuation exception provides a procedurally legitimate path to operational continuity, and because the institutional interests of an established profession with 23 licensing states and federal loan access are more immediately manageable than the epistemic interests of the students who have not yet enrolled in the programs the continuation enables.
This is the federal government performing a concierge function for institutional ignorism: managing the complaint thoroughly, documenting the failures completely, and then returning the establishment to operational status with a service improvement plan that leaves the ignorism-producing curriculum untouched, the ignorism-protecting accreditation standards unexamined, and the ignorism-distributing income data undisclosed in any form that would reach the prospective student's decision-making process before enrollment. The concierge is not corrupt. The concierge is doing exactly what the architecture assigns: ensuring operational continuity, managing institutional friction, and deferring the structural questions to a future compliance cycle that the architecture is designed to ensure never arrives at a terminal answer.
VIII. The Naturalness Fallacy as Ignorism's Cognitive Root
No account of naturopathic ignorism is complete without addressing the cognitive substrate that sustains it in the population: the naturalness fallacy — the inference that things labeled "natural" are inherently safer, more effective, or more virtuous than their synthetic or human-made counterparts.
This bias is empirically documented, culturally durable, and specifically resistant to correction by the same scientific information that should falsify it. Research confirms it operates across cultures and contexts, persists even when subjects are explicitly told the synthetic option is superior, and is correlated with science skepticism in a mutually reinforcing feedback loop. It is, in the most precise sense, an endogenous source of ignorism — a cognitive tendency that makes people receptive to false knowledge claims precisely in the domain where accurate knowledge matters most: the decisions they make about their own and their children's health.
Organized naturopathy did not create the naturalness fallacy. But it has identified it, cultivated it, institutionalized it, and built its entire commercial and regulatory strategy around it with a sophistication that deserves acknowledgment. The statutory name "naturopathic" deploys the natural signal at the level of professional identity. The curricular emphasis on "natural methods" and "healing by natural means" deploys it at the level of therapeutic framework. The marketing emphasis on "holistic," "integrative," and "science-based natural medicine" deploys it at the level of consumer communication. Each deployment meets the patient where their cognitive bias already places them and reinforces the inference that natural equals safe, natural equals effective, and natural equals true — the precise inferences that scientific skepticism, correctly understood as the positive, evidence-proportioning process of calibrated knowledge-building, would dissolve if it were permitted to operate.
The naturalness fallacy is ignorism's demand-side complement to its supply-side institutional architecture. The architecture manufactures and protects ignorance in the production pipeline. The fallacy ensures a ready and receptive market for its products. Together they produce a system that does not need coercion, does not require fraud in the legal sense, and does not depend on the active bad faith of most of its individual participants — because the cognitive and institutional conditions for its operation are self-sustaining once established. The ignorism runs itself.
IX. The Peculiarity of This Ignorism
Most institutional failures of knowledge are failures of degree — insufficient rigor, inadequate oversight, underfunded inquiry, premature consensus. They operate within a shared commitment to the idea that knowledge matters and that institutions should try to produce it. The remedies are familiar: more resources, better processes, stronger oversight, clearer standards.
Naturopathic ignorism is peculiar because it is a failure of kind, not degree. It does not fail to produce knowledge rigorously enough. It produces non-knowledge with complete institutional rigor — using the full apparatus of doctoral education, professional licensing, federal accreditation, legislative authorization, and professional communications to transmit, protect, credential, and defend doctrines that the knowledge-producing enterprise has settled against. It is not a system trying to know and falling short. It is a system structured to not-know, performing its function with remarkable consistency and sophistication across every layer of the institutional architecture available to it.
The breadth is equally peculiar: ignorism of this character typically operates in a single institutional domain — a captured regulator here, a corrupted professional body there. The naturopathic version is comprehensive. It operates simultaneously at the curricular level, the accreditation level, the federal recognition level, the state licensing level, the professional communications level, and the cognitive level of the patient population it serves. Each layer reinforces the others. The ignorism is not confined to one node in the system where it could be excised — it is the system's operating principle, distributed across every node, such that reform at any single layer is absorbed and neutralized by the others.
This is why the Naturocrit logo's four terms — factuality and freedom, deceit and sectarian capture, scientific skepticism, naturalness fallacy — are not a list of problems but a description of a design. The design's purpose is the organized maintenance of ignorism across the full span of the institutional architecture, from the cognitive substrate of the patient population through the curriculum of the doctoral student through the standards of the accreditor through the statutes of the legislature through the compliance processes of the federal government. Ignorism at this scale and this degree of architectural intentionality is not a peculiarity of naturopathy alone — but naturopathy has achieved it with a completeness, a durability, and a sophistication that makes it a case study in what institutional ignorism looks like when it is fully realized.
X. What Ignorism Demands by Way of Response
An ignorism this architectural cannot be addressed by the instruments designed for ordinary institutional failure. Process reform, compliance timelines, governance documentation, income disclosure requirements — these are the tools of a system that assumes the underlying enterprise is oriented toward knowledge and needs its processes improved. Applied to an enterprise oriented toward ignorism, they produce compliance theater: the appearance of correction that leaves the underlying design intact and operational.
What institutional ignorism at this scale demands is what can be termed "trunk and root" engagement: the statutory removal of "science" from the legislative definition of naturopathy, the decoupling of state licensure from CNME's doctrinal standards, the introduction of independent epistemic authority over curriculum content at the accreditation level, and the honest public disclosure of the income data the federal government already possesses but has not required programs to present to prospective students in a form, prominence, and specificity that would actually reach their decision-making process before enrollment.
Short of that: the continued documentation, in the Naturocrit tradition, of what the system actually produces — what NDs actually practice, what programs actually teach, what graduates actually earn, what patients actually encounter — not because documentation alone dismantles ignorism, but because ignorism's one genuine vulnerability is the light that factuality casts on the manufactured darkness it depends on.
Ignorism thrives in the gap between institutional appearance and institutional substance. It depends on the citizen trusting the credential, deferring to the license, accepting the accreditation stamp, and not looking behind them to find that the knowledge the forms promise is absent from the content they protect. Every accurate document that closes that gap — every analysis that holds the form against the substance and names the distance between them — is the corrective that ignorism was built to prevent. Which is precisely why it must persist."
[Hear, hear.]
No comments:
Post a Comment