Here's to the Late Martin Gardner And His Criticism of the Cult of Naturopathy c1957

here, I go back to THE scientific skepticism wellhead -- my 1957 copy of Martin Gardner's “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” (ISBN 0486203948) which Wikipedia describes as “a classic in the literature of entertaining scientific skepticism [...and] perhaps the first modern book of scientific skepticism of pseudoscience" -- and partly quote from what it says about naturopathy:

“Chapter 16 – Medical Cults. In no other field have pseudoscientists flourished as prominently as in the field of medicine. It is not hard to understand why. In the first place, a medical quack – if he presents an impressive facade - can usually make a great deal of money. In the second place, if he is sincere, or partly sincere, the healing successes he is almost sure to achieve will greatly bolster his delusions. In some cases, of course, the doctor is an out-and-out charlatan [..] there are two great secrets of the quack’s success. One is the fact that many human ills, including some of the severest, will run their course and vanish without treatment of any sort [p.186...] the other [...is] due to the fact that many of life’s ills are wholly or in part psychosomatic […] in this chapter we shall glance at four outstanding medical cults, all of them founded by pseudoscientists, which have won many millions of disciples in the United States […] the first medical cult of any importance in America -- homeopathy -- had its origin in the mind of a German doctor, Samuel Christian Hahnemann. He published his great opus, The Organon, in 1810 [p.187...] Hahnemann believed that as the drug became less 'material' it gained 'spiritual' curative powers [p.188...] the homeopathic error was to take both these limited truths, exaggerate them to the point of absurdity, and apply them universally to all medicines […] 'allopathy' [is] a homeopathic term, now obsolete, for orthodox medicine […] the cult spread rapidly over Europe in the 1820’s, reached England and America in the 1840’s, and came to its pinnacle of success about 1880 in the United States [p.189...] naturopathy, like homeopathy, is a world-wide medical cult which had its origin in Europe. Unlike homeopathy, however, it has no single founder […] in essence, it is a complete reliance on 'nature' for healing […] hundreds of strange methods of therapy clustered about the movement, so it is not easy to say exactly what the tenets of naturopathy are [p.191...] hundreds of schools calling themselves naturopathic sprang up here and there in the early years of the century. They were as frowsy as could be imagined […] there was little unity of beliefs behind these schools [p.192...it includes] iridiagnosis is the diagnosis of ills from the appearance of the iris of the eye […] anyone who thinks no medical movement could be more insane than iridiagnosis, is much mistaken [p.193...] shrewder schools of naturopathy have abandoned indiagnosis [p.195]."

Note: one big thing that has change regarding naturopathy is that naturopathy codified their tenets and belief-set in the late 1980s.  That set of nonsense, insanity, and absurdity can be best found as sponsored by the State of Oregon.

002. for Gardner's Wikipedia page, click here.

Coyne on Naturopathy: "Anti-science", "Pre-scientific" - Mcleans 2010-01-07:

here, I briefly cite from a Mcleans.ca article written by Andrew Coyne that touched on naturopathy:

Coyne, A. (? ?) states in Mcleans.ca's "Coyne on Climategate: The Truth is Out There Somewhere" (2010-01-07):

"science has pushed the boundaries of human knowledge to limits never before imagined.  Yet all sorts of anti-scientific, indeed pre-scientific beliefs are flourishing at the same time, from the enduring appeal of naturopathy and other folk cures to the hysterias over childhood vaccines and genetically modified foods, all the way to the dreadful pseudoscience of 'intelligent design'."

Note: wow!

NCSE's Newton on 'Science Denial', Colquhoun on Naturopathy 'Make Believe' - Philadelphia Inquirer, UPI (2009-12-24)

here, I cite from two identically dated news articles regarding science. The National Center for Science Education's [NCSE] Steven Newton [US] writes about 'science denial' in the Philadelphia Inquirer [see 001., below], while University College London's [UCL] David Colquhoun [UK] is sourced by United Press International [UPI] concerning naturopathy 'as make believe' [see 002., below]:

001. the NCSE's Newton writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer's "Science Denial is on the Rise":

"from evolution to global warming to vaccines, science is under assault from denialists - those who dismiss well-tested scientific knowledge as merely one of many competing ideologies. [Such] science denial goes beyond skeptical questioning [...and] attack[s] the legitimacy of science itself […] despite such misleading hyperbole, science is meritocratic […] research is judged by the data and methodology […] as the great physicist Richard Feynman noted, 'science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.' Science requires conclusions about how nature works to be rooted in evidence-based testing […] science denialism works differently. [E.g.] creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution. Global-warming denialists are unimpressed by climate data. Denialists ignore overwhelming evidence […] cloak[ing] themselves in the mantle of science without being restricted by its requirements [...] they could submit it to scientific conferences and journals, inviting analysis by scientists. But, knowing their arguments don't hold water, they spread misinformation in [publication] arenas not subject to expert scrutiny […] understanding science has never been more important than it is today."

Note: this 'cloaking' is an m.o. I continually observe naturopathy doing. When naturopathy claims that within science is nonscience, naturopathy offers no scientific findings or scientific methodologies to support that.  Naturopathy writes it -- only -- as if then magically such irrationality is then made true and rational.  I've said this many times: it's as though science for naturopathy is a letterhead on a piece of paper, and they magically believe that whatever they then write underneath that 'science' letterhead is then science.  Naturopathy is quite fantastical, and quite absurd.

002. UCL's David Colquhoun is sourced by the UPI in “Britain Urged to Crack Down on Remedies”:

“the British government and doctors should do more to crack down on those who promote [pseudo!] remedies such as curing AIDS with vitamins [...] says David Colquhoun of the University College London [...per] an editorial in the Christmas issue of the British Medical Journal [...he wrote] colleges 'avoid the hard questions by setting up committees' while the government's department of health refers the hard questions to the Prince of Wales' Foundation for Integrated Health, which was asked to draft 'national occupational standards' for make believe subjects like 'naturopathy' [oh snap!...] Colquhoun cites two recent examples [...] the recent homeopathy 'evidence check' conducted by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee [...admitted] 'that there was no good evidence that homeopathy worked [at all, because it's a pseudoremedy labeled, by the way, by naturopathy 'clinical science'...and] Colquhoun criticizes the head of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for suggesting that homeopathy cannot be tested by proper randomized controlled trials [his original editorial submission to the BMJ is here].”

Note: I would argue that naturopathy is similarly a form of such 'science denial', except in naturopathy's case they deny:

a) basic biological science concerning physiology [e.g. by posing vitalistic and supernatural / immaterial forces as being fundamentally in control of physiology!];

b) basic pharmacological science, particularly as concerns homeopathy. 

Vitalism's Profound Nonscientific Status - Richard Dawkins (ISBN 0199216800; 2008):

01. What science says, a specific example:

in the newly published "The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing" (ISBN 0199216800; 2008), Richard Dawkins writes:

"life is the execution of programs written using a small digital alphabet in a single, universal machine language. This realization was the hammer blow that knocked the last nail in the coffin of vitalism and, by extension, of dualism. The hammer was wielded, with undisguised youthful relish, by James Watson and Francis Crick [p.030...] for me, the greatest achievement of Watson and Crick was to turn genetics from a branch of wet and squishy physiology into a branch of information technology, in the process slaying, as I suggested above, the ghost of vitalism [p.226]."

Note: obviously, vitalism is profoundly science-ejected according to Dr. Dawkins, a leading biologist.

02. What naturopathy says:

02.a. recently, I received by Google news alert the following announcement:

"Huber Natural Health LLC recently held a ribbon-cutting ceremony and open house to celebrate the opening of its new permanent location [...our practitioners are] Dr. Luke Huber, N.D. [...and] Dr. Ruth Galbraith, N.D. [...] for more information, visit www.hubernaturalhealth.com."

02.b. so, I followed the practice site link, where we are told by NDs Huber and Galbraith, in a web page titled "Naturopathic Medicine", regarding naturopathy and science, in quite certain language:

"naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] is naturopathic medicine scientific? Yes."

Note: their claim is that naturopathy is within science, is scientific.

02.c. we are also told on this same page by these NDs that there are essential and definitive:

"principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1 being] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN...] naturopathic doctors respect and work with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling [...] vis medicatrix naturae -- 'the healing power of nature' [...] this concept [...is] one of the central themes of naturopathic philosophy to this day."

Note: nowhere on that page is HPN-VMN explained for what it actually contextually means to NDs - vitalism [a 'purposeful life spirit' bioagency figmentation]. For my aggregation of such 'essential naturopathic vitalism,' visit http://thevitalismofnaturopathy.blogspot.com/ .

03. What science says, collectively:

vitalism has been profoundly science-ejected for several decades. See http://novfsinscience.blogspot.com/ .

04. Note, in sum:

naturopathy falsely labels the profoundly science-ejected as scientific. Also, we are told here, that Dr. Galbraith is the current President of the NHAND.

A Letter to King 5:

Recently, I received a Google news alert about a web article by the TV station King 5 on naturopathy.

This was my letter to them, in response [in green]:

In "Bastyr Camp Introduces Traditional Medical Students to Natural Medicine" by Jean Enersen

(per http://www.king5.com/health/stories/NW_072508HEB_bastyr_cam_camp_LJ.a832e4.html ),

King 5 News states:

"Bastyr camp introduces traditional medical students to natural medicine [...] the curriculum includes everything from nutrition to Chinese medicine to herbal medicine, all back[ed] up by science."

I know a little about Bastyr, naturopathy and science.

Bastyr claims that within what they call "natural health science" is both spiritism and vitalism (see http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drmiss_22425_brief.php ). If this is in doubt, see OBNE (per http://www.oregon.gov/OBNE/Aboutnaturopathy.shtml ).

Again, you say this naturopathy approach is "all backed up by science;" and vitalism (see http://thevitalismofnaturopathy.blogspot.com/) and spiritistic supernaturalism (see http://naturopathicspiritism0000.blogspot.com/) are what defines naturopathy.

My request is this: can you share with me the science behind vitalism and supernaturalism [the essentially naturopathic]?

According to my studies, science neither includes nor supports vitalism (see http://novfsinscience.blogspot.com/) or the supernatural (see http://sciencerejectssupernaturalism0000.blogspot.com/) [in fact, science has rejected both -- for several decades and a few centuries, respectively].

To me, the claim that something is scientific when it isn't is flim-flam.

In fact, in the recently published article in the Guardian by Rose Shapiro, author of "Suckers: How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All" (ISBN 1846550289; 2008)

(see http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/24/healthandwellbeing.radovankaradzic?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews),

the author states:

"could this be the moment when alternative medicine finally gets the reputation it deserves and is seen for what it is - a massive social and intellectual fraud? [...] alternative medicine is not only founded on lies and falsehoods, but it can be very bad indeed for your health [physical AND mental!!!]."

Do you see naturopathy's lies yet?

-Rob Cullen

Let's begin our naturopathy criticism:

This blog page is dedicated to investigating and exposing Naturopathic Medicine for the intellectual fraud that it truly is.

As whim dictates, I shall scribble.

To quote Rose Shapiro from the Guardian article "A Bad Week For Alternative Medicine, "

"could this be the moment when alternative medicine finally gets the reputation it deserves and is seen for what it is -- a massive social and intellectual fraud?"

My basic analytical formula is as follows:

naturopathy claims to be scientific;

naturopathy is based upon vitalism;

naturopathy is based upon supernatural spiritism;

both vitalism and supernatural spiritism are profoundly science-ejected [I will not
cite the scientific pronouncements of such, as they are PROFOUND,
and such is simply FACTUAL].

So, in the end, naturopathy is about BULLSHIT:

claiming that that which is PROFOUNDLY science-ejected / non-science-supported is in fact [falsely] scientific.

I have termed this "epistemic conflation," the blending of knowledge types:

the claim that that which is not scientific is simultaneously scientific.

If you bear with me, I shall perpetually expose this CRAPPOLA.

-r.c.