Life U.'s Vitalism Woo Per D.C. & Dr. Hall on Science Per S.I.:

here, I quote from a recent Dynamic Chiropractic article by the President of Life University that describes chiropractic's vitalism [see 001., below]; and, then a recent Skeptical Inquirer article by Dr. Harriet Hall that offers some advice regarding skeptics' engagement with such woo [see 002. & 003., below]:

001.a. Life U. President Riekeman states in "Vitalism Key to Contemporary Health Care Policy" (Dynamic Chiropractic; vol. 27, no. 17):

"vitalism [...] the idea of a spirit that animates and operates the body [...a.k.a.] biological vitalism [...a.k.a.] the body as a self-regulating system [...this] inherent self-maintaining, self organizing and self-healing ability of the body [...a.k.a.] vis medicatrix naturae [...is] the new vitalism [...] a truly vitalistic approach to national health care [is needed...per a] chiropractic approach to health [...] 'vitalism is a good paradigm' [...] vitalism provides the right framework through which chiropractic can provide a truly meaningful contribution [...our] vitalistic wellness philosophy [...] our vitalistic philosophy [...] our vitalistic approach to health."

Note: Life U. defines itself as vitalistic. It is also steeped in subluxation theory. Subluxation theory is not scientifically supported. Upon reflection, vitalism is an archaic superstition. Overall, vitalism and subluxation theory are as scientific as the Tooth Fairy, and she ain't a solution for any kind of dental problem in the same way vitalism and subluxation theory aren't gonna solve real-world health care issues.

Particularly in terms of this blog's mission to discuss naturopathy mainly, a spirit running the body -- vitalism -- is an article of faith / supernaturalism / sectarianism, and such implausible suspensions of the laws of nature do not have scientific support. It is a HUGE logical error to claim that such a sectarian belief is the same thing as the ability of the body to heal and regulate itself, because biology-physiology is scientific and naturalistic and vitalism is the opposite. That is simply a fact. The new vitalism is just old sectarian wine relabeled in vagarity.

001.b. the Life Source Octagon think tank states in "Vis Medicatrix Naturae":

"Vis Medicatrix Naturae [...is] a historic set of presentations and discussions on the new vitalism. Representatives of chiropractic, naturopathy [I'm fascinated by naturopathy's essential vitalism], Asian medicine, ayurveda medicine and homeopathy will discuss vitalism [...e.g. per naturopathy] Vitalistic Philosophy - Naturopathy. Joseph Pizzorno, ND. Past President, Bastyr University and author of Textbook of Natural Medicine [TNM]."

Note: the chapter on vitalism in the TNM is most amusing. One of my favorite errors is the very wrong claim that life defies thermodynamic law. Vis medicatrix naturae is, of course, HUGELY naturopathy's vitalistic premise. I guess chiro. is getting tired of Innate.

002. Dr. Hall states in "Playing by the Rules" (Skeptical Inquirer; 2009-05/06):

"[advice] it is useless for skeptics to argue with someone who doesn’t play by the rules of science and reason. If no amount of evidence will change your opponent’s mind, you are wasting your breath [I so much agree...] science has been a very successful self-correcting group endeavor. It wouldn’t be successful if it didn’t follow a strict set of rules designed to avoid errors [...] if proponents of intelligent design or alternative medicine [like naturopathy,chiropractic, homeopathy] want to play the science game, they ought to play by the rules. If they won’t play by the rules, they effectively take themselves out of the scientific arena and into the metaphysical arena. In that case, it is useless for us to talk to them about science."

Note: regarding vitalism, remember that Bechtel and Richardson state that today vitalism "is often viewed as unfalsifiable, and therefore a pernicious metaphysical doctrine [...and according to Keating in that same article] 'chiropractors are not unique in recognizing a tendency and capacity for self-repair and auto-regulation of human physiology. But we surely stick out like a sore thumb among professions which claim to be scientifically based by our unrelenting commitment to vitalism ['the how that happens' explanation for that self-repair / auto-regulation]. So long as we propound the 'one cause, one cure' rhetoric of Innate, we should expect to be met by ridicule from the wider health science community. Chiropractors can’t have it both ways [nor can NDs!]. Our theories cannot be both dogmatically held vitalistic constructs and be scientific at the same time. The purposiveness, consciousness and rigidity of the Palmers' Innate [naturo. has this as well, as purposeful & intelligent 'vital force'] should be rejected' [hear, hear...and quoting Williams] 'today, vitalism is one of the ideas that form the basis for many pseudoscientific health systems [naturopathy, chiropractic, homeopathy & kind] that claim that illnesses are caused by a disturbance or imbalance of the body's vital force'".

003. what sCAM woomeisters have failed to do according to Dr. Hall, and some advice:

"there’s no point in arguing scientific facts with someone whose worldview is metaphysical [e.g. vitalistic] and nonscientific [e.g. supernaturalistic...] if they won’t play the science game by the rules, we are justified in crying 'foul' and disqualifying them [...] wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear a homeopath [or a chiropractor or a naturopath] say, 'I believe homeopathy [or naturopathy or chiropractic] works based on my personal experience and on nonscientific evidence like testimonials, and I categorically reject the results of any scientific trial that fails to support my beliefs' [a.k.a. 'I'm a health sectarian'...] if they'd say that up front, we wouldn't waste any of our valuable time rehashing scientific evidence [or lack thereof] that they will just ignore. They would be out of the game, permanently. And patients would have a better basis for giving truly informed consent."

Note: yup.

University of Bridgeport's Science Absurdity, via Brady: AKA,'UB is Not Academically Fraudulent and Abusive Like Them Guys' [While Actually F & A]:

here, I detail a recent Dynamic Chiropractic article by University of Bridgeport Health Science Vice Provost Brady criticizing 'them bogus guys', AKA competitors in the realm of 'woo education' [see 001., below]; and, I point out his hypocrisy, per UB's complete bogosity [see 002., below]:

001. David M. Brady

[DC TCC, ND UBCNM; a DC whom I had as an instructor at UB {1998-2002}, and a fellow ND student while he was doing his ND there {I ceased on ethical grounds, he graduated}]

"Vice Provost of the Division of Health Sciences [etc. {which includes naturopathy ISYN and chiropractic} ...] at the University of Bridgeport [UB]",

states in "Academic and Credential Fraud and Abuse Must Stop" [Dynamic Chiropractic; 2009-06-17 -- vol. 27, iss. 13]:

"dubious and quasi-degrees [...] bogus, nonaccredited, internet-only, graduate and terminal credentials or degrees [...] nonaccredited, substandard degrees [...] fraudulent credentials [...per] various web-based diploma mills and nonaccredited correspondence institutions [...are] a very alarming and destructive trend [...per] an attempt to gain more credibility and attract new patients [...per] 'quasi' credentials [...misleading] the public into believing they are following the advice of a legitimately trained individual [...] these institutions are propagating academic fraud at the expense of their unenlightened students and public safety [...this] demands our immediate attention [...] the curriculum and infrastructure of these institutions simply do not meet acceptable criteria to grant such degrees legitimately [...per the] rigid standards of self and independent review [...of] regionally and specialty-accredited institutions [...] program[s...] licensed by the Department of Higher Education of the home state of the institution and [...] regional accreditation by a federally recognized organization [and Brady lists the Big 6...and mentions, appositely] Council on Naturopathic Medicine (CNME)-accredited naturopathic medicine program graduates are eligible [...for] state registration, certification or licensure."

Note on 001.:

this is like Bernie Madoff being called in to advise on GM's bankruptcy restructuring. See 002. below for UB's "academic and credential fraud" absurdity, in their own words and as analyzed through National Center for Science Education & National Association of Biology Teachers [NCSE-NABT], American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], and Popular Science Monthly [PSM].

Some of the critical words Brady uses: dubious, quasi-, bogus, substandard, fraudulent, alarming, destructive, misleads, [il]legitimate, academic fraud, [un]acceptable.

My irony meter has exploded: for he has described his own school, UB -- which is merely 'academic fraud in a tuxedo'.

002. UB naturopathy's nonsense position of 'it is what it isn't':

002.a. UB naturopathy's claim of being nonsectarian and scientific:

002.a1. nonsectarian:

I've a collection here.

002.a2. scientific:

I've a collection here. This is part of naturopathy's overarching science claim.

002.b. UB naturopathy's vitalism sectarianism:

I've a collection here.

Note: vitalism is HUGELY science-ejected.

002.c. UB naturopathy's supernaturalism sectarianism:

I've a collection here.

002.d. what NCSE, AAAS, and PSM specifically say about the scientific status of the above 'essentially naturopathic' [it ain't science]:

002.d1: NCSE on vitalism via NABT per "Scientific Integrity":

"science [...has] internally-consistent methods and principles that are well described [...] proposed causes and explanations must be naturalistic [...] the data concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline [...] NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific process. Any attempt to mix or contrast supernatural beliefs and naturalistic theories within science misrepresents the scientific enterprise and debases other, non-scientific ways of knowing [...] science does not, in fact cannot, study, explain, or judge non-scientific issues or supernatural belief systems [{like naturopathy!}...] nonscientific notions such as [...] vitalistic theory ['the essentially naturopathic'], therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom [...] materials, methods, and explanations that fail to meet these ongoing tests of science are not legitimate components of the discipline and must not be part of a science curriculum [...] the principles and theories of science have been established through repeated experimentation and observation and have been refereed through peer review before general acceptance by the scientific community."

002.d2. AAAS on supernaturalism, per "A Study Guide For The Evolution Dialogues":

"what science is and is not. The scientific method uses observation and logic to develop testable hypotheses. Scientific theories encompass many tested hypotheses and are continually refined as new data is discovered. [But,] no aspect of science can address supernatural questions [p.020...e.g.] creationism and 'intelligent design' deal with supernatural questions that [truly] cannot be addressed through the scientific method. Science and religion ask and answer different questions [p.031...] supernatural entities by definition operate outside of natural laws and so [truly] cannot be investigated using methods of experimentation [...] one reason that modern science has flourished since the seventeenth century is that it has limited itself to natural explanations alone [p.032]."

002.d3: PSM on the sectarian, per "A Minority But Not a Sect":

"science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what can not be proved [naturopathy's vitalism & supernaturalism], for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed ['the essentially naturopathic']."

Note on 002.:

UB's "health science" and naturopathy are the most egregious of "academic and credential fraud" I've ever seen, as personally experienced, with the HUGELY science-ejected and nonscientific labeled science, and the HUGELY sectarian labeled nonsectarian -- all wrapped up in a NEASC ND from UB.

Warning to all: UB naturopathy, with their PROFOUNDLY absurd 'something is what it HUGELY isn't', is THE MOST RETARDED OF RETARDATIONS.

UB naturopathy is one OBVIOUSLY 'bogus, accredited, in-residence, graduate and terminal credential and degree'.

UB naturopathy is dubious, quasi-, bogus, substandard, fraudulent, alarming, destructive, misleading, illegitimate, academically fraudulent and unacceptable.

AND, regional accreditation, state- & federal- sanction are, through UB's naturopathy example, merely alternates these days for 'accessories to fraud'.

003. overall note:

I look forward to Dr. Hall's analysis of chiropractic at this year's "Science-Based Medicine" conference, "A Scientific Critique of Chiropractic".

Note on 003.:

and, I will continue to inform the CTAGO and the USDE about UB & FNPLA naturopathy's disgusting academic predation. But, realistically, I'm alerting State and Federal authorities about a fraud they are accessories to.