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.

BCMA's Mackie - NDs are NOT Science-Based, 2009:

here, I quote from the British Columbia Medical Association's President regarding the nonscientific basis of naturopathy:

001. at The Globe and Mail reports in "BCMA Chief Expresses Worry Over Expanded Role For Naturopaths" (2009-01-28)[archived here]:

"[via Wendy Stueck] the head of the British Columbia Medical Association has raised concerns about proposed regulatory changes that would allow B.C. naturopaths to prescribe drugs, order lab tests and identify themselves as doctors without a qualifier, such as 'naturopathic,' in the description. 'Our main concern is safety and science,' BCMA president Bill Mackie said [...] naturopathic training institutions are not affiliated with universities and are not science based, Dr. Mackie said."

You said it, brother.

 

[Note 2026-11: The post was lightly reformatted.]

Where's the Qi? aka Vote to Defund NCCAM, & Absurdity:

here, I encourage readers to vote to defund the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine [NCCAM; see 001., below {thanks PZ}], and I illustrate the absurdity of claiming as a foundation for a "science" a premise that lacks any scientific support [see 002., below]:

001. vote to defund the NCCAM, per:

"any legitimate, promising medical treatment can be funded by one of the existing NIH Institutes. There's no need for a separate center for 'alternative' therapies - but what has happened is that NCCAM has become a last refuge for poorly designed, unscientific studies that couldn't get funded through the normal peer-reviewed process [...] the fact is that after >10 years, NCCAM has not yet found a single piece of positive evidence for any of these methods, which include acupuncture, 'qi', homeopathy, magnet therapy, and other treatments."

Note: qi, essentially, does not exist in any scientific sense.

002. absurdly, meanwhile, naturopathy:

002.a. uses the overall labels of "health science", "branch of medical science", "science-based" and such.

002.b. has as its keystone premise both vitalism and supernaturalism.

002.c. labels homeopathy and acupuncture clinical sciences.

002.d. while vitalism is science-ejected, supernaturalism is science-ejected, homeopathy is an elaborate placebo, and acupuncture is an elaborate placebo.

Note: so, the 'without scientific support' or 'explicitly science-ejected' is equal to the 'explicitly labeled scientific' for naturopathy...

absurd.

Obama & Creationism / ID, NCSE-NABT & Scientific Integrity, & Naturopathy's Vitalistic Woo:

President-elect Barack Obama is on record favoring upholding the integrity of science education, as reported by The Guardian [see 001., below]; the National Center For Science Education [NCSE] recently published a collection of position statements from major science organizations as regards "scientific integrity" [see 002., below]; naturopathy's vitalistic woo falsely labeled as scientific when truly profoundly science-ejected is a textbook example of a threat to the integrity of science [see 003., below]:

001. The Guardian's Adam Rutherford reports in "The Evolution of Science Teaching: Keep Creationism Off the Curriculum But Train Teachers To Deal With Questions About Intelligent Design" {2008-11-07}:

"[quoting Obama, likely from the York Daily Record interview of 2008-03-30] 'I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith [...] they're two different things [...] it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry'

[...and, Rutherford writes, as regards some UK science teachers claiming that creationism is a valid scientific theory] we potentially have one fifth of science teachers who don't understand their subject [their 'blatant science illiteracy'...overall] we have two problems

[...#1] a proportion of science teachers are not fit for purpose [i.e., a situation of 'academic malpractice']. [E.g.,] those who think that creationism and evolution should be considered equally in a scientific context do not understand evolution [...moreover,] they do not understand science and need either to be rigorously re-educated, or removed from the science classroom [!!!]. [Obviously,] the process of teacher training has failed these poor deluded souls, and they should not be allowed to pass on their ignorance to pupils

[...#2] creationism [...] despite clearly being unscientific [...] does have a relationship with the only valid rational explanation of life, namely evolution by natural selection. [So,] science teachers should be able to deal with it in the classroom, succinctly and without endorsing it. Creationism should not be part of the national curriculum for science but should be included in science teacher training [...teachers, therein] can be fully tooled-up to explain why [scientifically speaking] evolution is right and creationism is wrong."

Note: so, claiming the nonscientific [belief / articles of faith & kind] as scientific [what survives scientific scrutiny] 'clouds scientific teaching' / 'undermines scientific integrity' -- according to the President-elect. Rutherford additionally points out that within the ranks of UK teachers there's blatant science illiteracy & academic malpractice, as forms of delusion & ignorance that are just plain factually wrong in the context of science are being claimed to survive scientific scrutiny!

002. NCSE states in "Voices For Evolution" (ISBN 0615204619; 3rd. ed., 2008):

"[per the] National Association of Biology Teachers (1995) [NABT]: Scientific Integrity [...] the data, concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline. To this end, NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific processes.

Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom [p.154]."

Note: overall, teaching as science what is profoundly not science is harmful to scientific integrity -- "vitalistic theory" is one of these nonscientific concepts.

003. naturopathy is an example of harming scientific integrity by posing what's profoundly science-ejected as scientific:

naturopathy is explicitly centered / obligated to "vitalistic theory" woo, yet claims to be science, while science has HUGELY ejected vitalistic theory.

004. the math:

when is something [falsely] labeled what it is not...

the absurdity known as naturopathy.

Naturopathy - "Religion Rather Than Science" - Wired Inspired, 2008:

a recent Wired Science article reminded me of what I've learned about the essentially religious / sectarian nature [context] of natural medicine / naturopathy, falsely [shamelessly!] presented by naturopathy to the public as science when profoundly not:

001. Wired Science states in "McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in [Public] School" {2008-08-29}:

"Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in [public school] science classes [yikes!...yet] state and federal courts have repeatedly rejected so-called creation science in public schools, calling it religion rather than science [...e.g.] the latest courtroom defeat came in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, when the superficially religion-neutral theory of intelligent design was classified as religious creationism [...e.g.] the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that teaching creationism [in public schools] violated the separation of church and state";

Note: historically, in the sense that creationism is supernatural and theistic dogma / based upon articles of faith / a creed, it is not scientific / based upon evidence / subject to revision -- therein, it is religious.

002. naturopathy's supernaturalism and theism type:

002.a. naturopathy is based upon the belief that physiology is run by a 'purposeful life spirit';

002.b. the theistic type that naturopathy essentially entails is "autoentheism." This is a term I coined to succinctly describe the naturopathic belief that 'god is within oneself controlling physiology as that life force';

003. the kicker, of course, is that naturopathy claims to be scientific, when essentially not [science PROFOUNDLY rejects vitalism, rejects supernaturalisms]. It is, essentially, religious / sectarian rather than science:

for a brief definition of sectarian, see Popular Science Monthly {Nov. 1889, v.36, p.122}:

"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, for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed."