Kansas vs. Darwin, Naturalism, Supernaturalism, Evolution, Naturopathy -- and Some Kansas Naturopathy

here, I cite from the 2007 film "Kansas vs. Darwin" [see 001., below]; then I draw parallels to naturopathy [see 002., below]; particularly equating the creationists' god-of-the-gaps argument with vitalists' vital-force-of-the-gaps one [see 003., below]; then, we visit some Kansas naturopathy [see 004., below]:

001. in "Kansas vs. Darwin" [the free stream will be up for a while]:

"[00.17.56 title] adoption of the minority report would insert a new definition of science into the teaching standards [...Kansas Citizens for Science member Harry McDonald, retired high school biology teacher] 'the problem is not what they say.  The problem is what they're leaving out, and the hay they're going to make as a result of leaving it out.  And they're specifically leaving out this reference that science deals with only natural explanations.  And they're specifically leaving it out because then that opens up the supernatural' [by unlimiting science...Pedro L. Irigonegaray, trial attorney, council for Science Standards Majority] 'that's absolutely illogical.  How can one understand whether or not there is a controversy in science if one doesn't understand at least what the scientific process is? [...] intelligent design requires a designer [...] supernatural [...] ultimately it is god [...] their perspective of god' [claimed as universally true, of course...KCS Jack Krebs] 'they're also attacking this bigger idea that in fact the things that we don't know about the past can be filled in with supernatural explanations' [00.26.45, the 'god-of-the-gaps' argument...00.28.59] the National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC is considered to be the chief scientific authority in the United States and most of the world [...] Bruce Alberts, PhD. President, National Academy of Sciences [...science] 'doesn't involve supernaturalism [...] the reason why science is successful and has transformed our societies and our lives, and improved our health, is we insist as we explore the world there must be an natural explanation for this [...it's not about inserting] god [...essentially giving up looking because] then of course you'll never find out the answers because you only work hard to find out an answer when you believe there is one, that there is a natural explanation.  Always in the past, no matter how hard the question, we've found natural explanations. We need to keep that the centerpiece of science' [...] [00.31.40 Burt Humburg] 'you don't promote a scientific theory by appealing to state boards of education.  If their was any validity to intelligent design, they would be publishing their work [science peer-review], they would be convincing people just by sheer weight of the utility of their ideas' [adoption]."

Note: so, there's the redefinition of science, opening up science to supernaturalism while naturalism is an essence of science.  There's the claim of science-expertise without scientific expertise, there's imposition of sectarian belief, god-of-the-gap, and science-by-decree not by its usual processes.  Boy, a lot of this resonates with me in relation to naturopathy.

002. and so:

002.a. naturopathy claims that the supernatural is science, therein redefining science:

yet, it's called "natural".  So, there is an ultimately supernatural basis for the natural, according the lead expert on so-called "science-based natural medicine", Joe Pizzorno (ND NCNM), who states that naturopath's centerpiece idea is "spirit" [supernatural].

002.b. there's the claim of science-expertise all-the-while:

Pizzorno is a microcosm of that.

002.c. there's the overall sectarian belief set claiming objective scientific fact status:

OBNM is a good example.

003. naturopathy's vital-force-of-the-gaps, via MD Novella in the Teaching Company lecture "Myths about Acupuncture’s Past and Benefits: Lecture 17" from the 2010 course "Medical Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths What We Think We Know May Be Hurting Us" [which I highly recommend]:

"[00.02.17] the Chinese have a concept for life energy which is called chi [...] life energy [...] this notion of a life energy is not unique to China or to Eastern cultures. In Sanskrit, there is mention of a life energy called prana. The Greeks had a notion of life energy that they called pneuma [...] the Romans had spiritus. [...] life energy is an interesting concept. It’s often referred to as vitalism or the vitalistic force, the force that makes living things different from nonliving things [...] this notion of vitalism was eliminated from the science of biology about 150 years ago. Essentially, vitalistic explanations were used to explain aspects of biology that we didn’t currently understand. Whatever process that we didn’t know how it happened we invoked vitalism as the explanation. But eventually it simply became unnecessary -- once we had anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry enough to explain the functions of life. Life energy simply became superfluous. It always was little more than a placeholder. There was no evidence for life energy; it simply was the default explanation that was used until biological sciences advanced sufficiently [00.04.12]".

Note: replace the science-exterior idea of god with naturopathy's science-exterior vital force, and you have an as-sectarian figmentation falsely posing science, as in the film - the god-of-the-gaps becomes in naturopathy a vital-force-of-the-gaps.  How naturopathy gets away with falsely labeling what is more than 100-years-ago science-ejected as science and trading on that circumstance both in terms of the education apparatus and clinically, well, that's a miracle.

004. Kansas naturopathy:

004.a. the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts states in "Kansas Statutes Annotated and Kansas Administrative Regulations Relating to the Practice of Naturopathy Revised January 2011":

"[the ND / NMD must have] passed an examination approved by the board covering appropriate naturopathic subjects including basic and clinical sciences [..] (1) basic sciences, including the following:(A) anatomy; (B) biochemistry; (C) microbiology; (D) pathology; and (E) physiology; and (2) clinical sciences, including the following: (A) emergency medicine and public health; (B) laboratory diagnosis and diagnostic imaging; (C) botanical medicine; (D) clinical nutrition; (E) physical and clinical diagnosis; (F) physical medicine; (G) psychology; (H) counseling; (I) ethics; and (J) homeopathy."

Note: the science claims are LARGE -- pannaturopathic -- and just the claim of science upon homeopathy alone is indicative of the nonscience that this claimed science status is.

004.b. I've posted previously:

in "State of Kansas BHA-NAC Members' Naturopathic Absurdity: Homeopathy As 'Science'", if you want more detail.

004.c. but, for some immediate sectarian vitalism-supernaturalism, see "About Our Clinic" by NDs Khosh and Beneda which states:

"our philosophy is based on the six principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature) [...] the body has more innate healing power than all medicine in history. We call this power the life force, and foremost, we cultivate its restorative processes. [#2] Tolle causam (identify and treat the cause): symptoms are an expression of the life force [...] we strive to promote balance, creativity, optimal health and wellness in the patient’s life on the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual realms [...] good health is the harmonious interrelation of physical, emotional, spiritual, environmental, social, and genetic factors."

Note: so, now the natural includes the supernatural science-exterior and vitalistic science-exterior.  All, of course, claimed by the State of Kansas board as science.  Fascinating, science by decree but false.  Yes, "the problem is what they're leaving out" and it is quite "illogical": actual science, and information concerning where naturopathy lies; the fact that someing cannot be within what excludes it.

My Favorite 'Science Excludes Supernaturalism' V4E3 Quotes

here, I cite from the National Center For Science Education's "Voices For Evolution" (3rd ed., ISBN 978-0-6152-0461-1, 2009) [V4E3] regarding the preponderant exclusion of supernaturalism from science:

001. "Kansas Academy of Science [...] 2006 [...] ideas that involve a supernatural agent are not scientifically testable, and therefore not scientific [p.059]."

002. "National Association of Biology Teachers [...] 1995 [...] science may appear to conflict with other ways of knowing about the universe, unfortunately leading some groups to see selected theories of science as a threat to their belief systems. This is not the case; science does not, in fact cannot, study, explain, or judge, non-scientific issues or supernatural belief systems [...] 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 [p.154]."

003. "National Science Education Leadership Association [...] 1990 [...] creationism, and other pseudo-sciences, are premised upon supernatural explanations of natural phenomena and therefore are outside the realm of science [p.161]."

004. "New Mexico Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education [...no date] these people denounce the theory of evolution and would substitute a non-scientific, supernatural explanation of the origins of life forms on earth [...] the creationist goal is to allow supernatural explanations into science in order to change the very basis of science. Science deals with natural explanations for natural phenomena. Creationism or intelligent design, if allowed, would change this to promote supernatural explanations for natural phenomena – a contradiction in terms with regard to science [p.167]."

005. "University of Oklahoma Department of Zoology: Statement on Evolution [...] 4/19/2006 [...] in science, not all explanations are equal. By the rigorous criteria of science, supernatural mechanisms, including intelligent design creationism, are not scientific because they do not generate testable predictions about how species change or diversify. To argue that supernatural explanations merit discussion in science classrooms so that ‘both sides’ of the issue are taught is to advocate that nonscience be legitimized as science. In an era where scientific solutions to complex problems are of first priority, this is dangerous logic. We thus oppose any attempt to weaken scientific standards with respect to evolution, or to broaden the science curriculum to include the supernatural. In this, we stand with our colleagues in the National Academy of  Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other scientific organizations [p.179]."

Note: guess what area claims -- absurdly -- that science INCLUDES the supernatural and science-exterior?

Supernaturalism Doesn't Belong in a Science Curriculum - Illinois Federation of Teachers, 2010

here, I quote from the position statement of the Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT) regarding the inappropriateness of having supernaturalism in a science curriculum / classroom [see 001., below]; then, I connect this to naturopathy, which incorrectly places, AT THE DOCTORAL REGIONALLY ACCREDITED LEVEL, the supernatural as WITHIN science [see 002., below]:

001. the IFT states in "Resolution No. 11 - Keep Supernaturalism Out of the Science Curriculum" [saved 2010-11-03]:

"it is the responsibility of the Illinois Federation of Teachers to preserve the integrity of science in the classroom; therefore be it resolved [...] supernaturalism is not a scientific endeavor and [...] is inappropriate for inclusion in the science curriculum [...] science is a systematic method for investigating natural phenomena through experimentation, observation and measurement leading to falsifiable explanations that are open to continuous testing [...and] proceeds on the basis of methodological naturalism and assumes observed phenomena of the universe are real, nature is consistent and understandable, and nature is explainable in terms of laws and theories [...] there have been attempts in some states to include supernaturalism in the science curriculum as an alternative to scientific explanations of nature, particularly as an alternative to evolutionary theory [...] arguments that invoke supernaturalism are grounded in religious or philosophical considerations outside the realm of science; and [...as such are] also attacks on the validity of using reason and experimentation to understand the universe [...] legislation that conflates supernaturalism [and science], or limits, or prohibits the teaching of any scientific theory negatively impacts our ability to make informed decisions [...] adopted at the 2010 Illinois Federation of Teachers Convention."

Note: hoo-ya.  IFT expressly states that this is not a statement regarding belief or non-belief in god, or promotion or retardation of any other religiosity.

002. meanwhile, in naturopathy-land [for instance, in my State of Connecticut], the supernatural [as a general epistemic and ontological mode and type] is placed improperly within the scientific.

Science Rejects Supernaturalism and Vitalism - Hall's 2010 ISBN 0763760390

here, I cite from an undergraduate science survey text centered on evolutionary science.  Note how, even within the undergraduate, nonscience major context, concepts such as supernaturalism and vitalism are overtly stated as nonscientific [see 001., below]; then I point out the anomaly of naturopathy, which at the doctoral level makes the absurd claim that those two concepts are indeed within science [see 002., below]:

001. Hall, B.K. (PhD{zoology} UNE, DSc{biological sciences} UNE) writes in "Evolution: Principles and Processes" (0763760390;2010) [the book is viewable at Amazon.com, in part]: 

"[this book is] written for students without a scientific background taking a one-term course [...and it] begins with a introduction to the nature of science [{on back cover}...regarding] vital force [or] vitalism [...] gaining freedom from such [religious-like, vacuous!] constraints was more difficult for biology (especially for evolution) than it was for physics or chemistry [p.433...] vitalism: the concept that the activities of living organisms cannot be explained by any underlying physical or chemical principles but arise from unknowable internal or supernatural causes [p.g21...] Darwin's works made clear that society no longer needed to believe that only the actions of a supernatural creator could explain biological relationships [p.435...] despite the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution as a natural process, some religous groups adhering to creation[ism] have developed intelligent design as a purported scientific alternative to evolution.  'Intelligent design' is latter-day creationism [...but] Kitzmiller v. Dover [..ruled it] a form of religion and not science [...] because intelligent design relies on supernatural explanations rather than natural causes, it is not science [...] religious arguments [...] are not scientific explanations and should not be confused with, or regarded as, scientific explanations [p.440]."

Note: science does not, obviously, include supernaturalism and vitalism.  Dr. Hall has both a doctorate in zoology, and in biological sciences.  This is a mainstream undergraduate biology textbook that, I think, speaks well for the preponderance of science regarding these two issues.  Vitalism, historically, impeded research, thus the language of "gaining freedom from such constraints."  It was regarded as a place-filler that diverted scientists from the gaining of actual knowledge, much as the "god did it" supernatural place-filler explained nothing -- essentially.

.
002. now, for the naturopathic.  Two versions come to mind that disqualify the naturopathic context or worldview as scientific.  There is the 'simple' Bastyr statement [see 002.a., below] and the 'more fractured' University of Bridgeport statement collection [see 002.b., below]:

002.a. Bastyr University, which has a naturopathic program that claims a "robust basic sciences curriculum" states, in their U.S. News and World Report [false] advertisement "Bastyr University" [vsc 2010-06-29]:

"Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature."

Note: the "nature" of course is naturopathy's central vitalistic context, the healing power of nature.  So, there you go, the supernatural and vitalistic falsely claimed to be within science.  Facts speak otherwise.  Integrating of course means to blend.  I have called such knowledge-type blending "epistemic conflation" [EC].  Science, truly, is not a conflation of knowledge types, but an "epistemic delineation."

002.b. the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine does the same type of EC, except it is spread across more than one web page:

002.b1. UB states vitalism and supernaturalism in 5 of their 6 defining naturopathic principles / strictures [vsc 2010-06-29]:

"Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1, the Healing Power of Nature, Viz Medicatrix Naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [vitalism]. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process ['the vitalistic context!'...] Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #2, Identify and Treat the Cause, Viz Tolle Causam" [...] causes may occur on many levels including physical, mental, emotional and spiritual [supernaturalism...] in "Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #3, First Do No Harm, Viz Primum no Nocere" [...] illiness [sp., illness!] is a purposeful [that is, teleological, which is also science-ejected] process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [vitalism, claimed as fact!] attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complimentary to and synergistic with this healing process ['this vitalistic context']. The physician's actions can support or antagonize the actions of he [sp., 'the!'] viz medicatrix naturae [...] Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #4, Treat the Whole Person, The Multifactorial Nature of Health and Disease" [I guess they couldn't swing the Latin on that one, and considering the likelihood that their 'viz' is supposed to be 'vis', we're grateful] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism,a whole involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors. The physician must treat the whole person by taking all of these factors into account [...]  Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #4,The Physician as Teacher, Viz Docere [...] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher."

Note: so, they can't spell or proofread well and their Latin sucks.  So, five out of the six UB naturopathic strictures involve vitalism or supernaturalism [or teleology!].  Then, it is all labeled "science" [vsc 2010-06-29].  Again, EC.

003. fascinating.  Commerce, here in the academic area and then into the clinical area, occurring under OBVIOUSLY false labels. 

Note: now, an ND is obligated to this false position, by OATH.  Here is that oath [vsc 2010-06-29] by a Canadian CAND-AANP-AANMC type ND:

"I dedicate myself to the service of humanity as a practitioner of the art and science of naturopathic medicine [...] I will honor the principles of naturopathic medicine: first, to do no harm; to cooperate with the healing powers of nature [vitalism!]; to address the fundamental causes of disease; to heal the whole person [supernaturalism!] through individualised treatment; to teach the principles of healthy living and preventive medicine. With my whole heart, before these witnesses, as a doctor of naturopathic medicine, I pledge to remain true to this oath."

Note: the label of "science" upon principles, which, when looked at in detail, are science-ejected.

The big INTERNATIONAL logical inconsistency and ethical absurdity, of course is:

I pledge to remain true to this falsehood, for the benefit of society!  In actuality, society is being deceived, and science, modern doctoral education, and plain old common sense are being defecated upon.

Utter Nonsense Labeled as Science, Compassion & Caring - Utter, N.L. (ND Bastyr 2003):

here, I muse upon naturopathic miscommunication and outright unethical twistedness:

001. the Durango Herald's article "Bringing Compassion Back into Medicine" (2009-09-14), topically labeled "Green Medicine", by Bastyr naturopath Nancy Utter, states:

"I have a dream that health care in this country [etc....] in my dream, every person has access to health care that heals the whole person - body, mind and spirit [...] one place to start is to rekindle compassion in medicine [...a.k.a.] 'the sincere wish to alleviate the suffering of another' [...by] creating a setting in which doctors can be more caring and let their innate compassion show [...per] practicing good medicine [...] one of these models is practiced by naturopathic doctors [(really!)...] the essential premise of naturopathic medicine is that doctors must support the mind and the spirit as well as the body to promote full healing [...] it creates trust [...] it helps to lessen suffering [...] join me in my dream of putting the 'care' back into health care [...] Nancy Utter is a naturopathic doctor who completed a five-year training program at Bastyr University in Seattle."

Note: hold on while I VOMIT in my own mouth.

002. how compassionate and caring are Bastyr NDs? Compassionate and caring enough to totally misrepresent the scientific enterprise and not abide by the typical duty of "informed consent" that binds the physician-patient relationship:

002.a. naturopathy's misrepresentation of science:

Bastyr has this nonsense description of their programs and of naturopathy therein in "Bastyr University":

"Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit [supernaturalism] and nature [vitalism]."

Note: so, we've an outright science label placed falsely upon the supernatural and coded vitalistic science-unsupported / science-ejected. How is it caring and compassionate to pretend that that which is in no way scientific is science? How do people benefit from such so-called compassion? How is this "good"?

002.b. not relating naturopathy's actual nonscientific position and therein violating informed consent:

to me, it is not permissible to misrepresent [per 002.a. above] the actual "nature" / context of naturopathy, literally -- which is the science ejected concept of "vis medicatrix naturae" aka vitalism.

003. this is quite a twisted version of compassion and care, in my view. It victimizes and exploits. It abuses the relationship between practitioner and trusting patient. It seems to me that NDs care much more about maintaining their sectarian, deceptive agenda than rationality, accuracy and patient autonomy.

004. Utter tells us at her own web page "Medicine by Naturopathic Physicians":

"naturopathic physicians (NDs) take a holistic approach to healing, and aim to cure disease by taking advantage of the body's self-regenerative powers and harnessing the restorative power of nature [(vitalism coded)...] naturopathic physicians work to identify and eliminate the cause of disease, and are guided by seven basic principles [...#1] the healing power of nature - facilitate each individual's own healing processes [(again, vitalism coded)...NDs are] educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. [...a.k.a.] the same basic sciences as allopathic physicians [...] a naturopathic physician takes rigorous professional board exams [...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with other medical professionals [...] naturopathic physicians are rigorously trained [...] during 4 years of intensive study the curriculum includes all basic and clinical science courses offered in traditional medical education [...] students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

Note: so, we're not told of the actual vitalism that defines naturopathy [though we are told of the actual supernaturalism that does] with any kind of transparency, but we are told falsely that there's this 'foundation of science' to the naturopathic. And we get the 'trust us' claim of 'professionalism' and supposed 'rigor'.

But, the scientific basis of the nonscientific is -- Utter nonsense [irresistible!].

Naturopathy's "Firmly Science-Based" Bullshit: Roxas, M. (ND NCNM) 2009:

here, I cite the words of an ND who claims that naturopathy is firmly scientific [see 001., below]; while naturopathy, as defined by that ND's own alma mater, is clearly based upon vitalism, teleology, and supernaturalism [see 002., below]; which ALL are PROFOUNDLY NOT SCIENCE [see 003., below]; and I give the Irish salute to all these rogues [see 004., below]:

001. Roxas, M. (ND NCNM) states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?":

"while firmly science-based, modern naturopathic medicine [etc.]."

Note: the claim is that 'the naturopathic' is quite science-established.

002. National College of Natural Medicine [NCNM] states in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [{science claim}...] these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [professions claim; #1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent [{teleology claim}]; nature heals through the response of the life force [{vitalism}]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#3] first do no harm -- primum no nocere. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact [fact claim], expressions of the life force [vitalism claim] attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process. The physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of vis medicatrix naturae [vitalism...#2] causes may occur on many levels, including physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual [supernatural claim...#4] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual [supernatural claim...#5] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [supernatural claim...] homeopathic medicine [...] promote[s] healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels [supernatural claim]."

Note: NDs claim that within 'objective scientific fact' is the teleological, vitalistic, and supernatural - obviously!

003. what science says:

003.a. teleology is HUGELY science-ejected, and so is vitalism [see 003., here].

003.b. supernaturalism is HUGELY science-ejected.

004. when is a 'firmly scientific fact' simultaneously HUGELY science-ejected...

naturopathy. Beware. They are the education robbers. When is a profession completely absurd...

naturopathy [therefore not a profession at all].

I want to thank all those involved for visiting this upon me as a consumer and citizen of the modern era:

the AANMC ND colleges and universities, the State oversight apparati [particularly CT], the Federal Dept.s of Education and of Trade.

As this whole consortia demand $ from me I answer:

pogue mahone.

Naturopathy's 'Supernatural Cause of Disease' - Ian, H. (NMD SCNM), Pizzorno, J.E. (ND NCNM):

here, I principally quote from a Naturopathic Doctor News & Review [NDNR] article by an NMD that states that all disease is due to a "spiritual" / supernatural cause, first & foremost [see 001., below]; and from a similar position held by Pizzorno [see 002., below]:

001. Ian, H. (NMD SCNM) states in "The Nature of the Counseling Relationship: Within the Naturopathic Philosophy" [NDNR 2009-04, p.014-015]:

"the counseling relationship provides a vehicle to approach the symptoms of illness through recognition of and reverence for the blueprint of the human [{huh?}...] the physician will understand and address the cause of illness [...] act[ing] with the vis medicatrix naturae [VMN...per] the creator's purpose [{theism?}...] the architect of the human has created a complex design consisting of emotional, psychological and spiritual components [{theism?}...that are] inseparable [...] all disease originates from a basic crisis of spirit [...] all physical dysfunction being manifest by the body is a reflection of deeper, unresolved spiritual issues [...per] the crisis of spirit that preceded and accompanied the manifestation of disease [...per] the inner emotional and spiritual experience of the human precedes and, in fact, determines all that is experienced at the physical level of life [...this is apposed to] the current cultural attitude that disease originates from unseen forces that invade and take over the physical body [{huh?; what culture is that, paleolithic man?}...Shealy & Myss] identified eight dysfunctional patterns in people who become sick [...#2] negative belief patterns that have control over a person's reality."

Note: the irony is killing me -- in naturoland, nature is supernatural, superstition is elevated to the status of fact. There's nothing "in fact" about a BELIEF that disease is entirely of supernatural origin -- it is an article of faith. Calling such in fact is truly 'the negative belief pattern', because faith and fact are different, and conflating them is absurd. I hazard to guess that such righteousness plows over others' freedom of conscience.

Meanwhile, similarly,
SCNM -- Ian's alma mater -- claims that naturopathic figmentation survives scientific scrutiny.

002. this parallels Pizzorno, J.E. (ND NCNM 1975)'s claim that the 'purposeful life spirit' bioagency NDs call VMN is a 'physiological system' / spirit:

"[page three:] seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body must function effectively to ensure our well-being, prevent disease, and allow a full life: the immune system, the detoxification system, the inflammatory system, the metabolic system, the regulatory system, the regeneration system, and our life-force (or spirit). Weakness in any of these seven systems results in susceptibilities that allow most common diseases to develop [...page four:] live in harmony with your life-force [...] each of us needs to become more aware of the activity of the vis medicatrix naturae (life-force) deep within us."

Note: meanwhile, similarly,
NCNM -- Pizzorno's alma mater -- claims that such naturopathic figmentation survives scientific scrutiny.

UBCNM / UB Naturopathy 2008: MisLabeled As Science:

so, I was out today and took a picture of a certain UB sign in my neighborhood that labels naturopathy "science" [see the jpg at 001.a., below; & 001.b.]. But, I advise that you look deeper if you wish to actually make an informed judgment about the scientific status of 'the essentially naturopathic'. This supposed science is 'based upon / obligated toward / defined by' premises that are HUGELY science-ejected:

001. the University of Bridgeport's labeling of naturopathy as "science":

001.a. this picture was taken from the City of Bridgeport's sidewalk [2008-10-04]. So, publicly, UB obviously labels naturopathy "science" [x2!] and engages in commerce under that epistemic designation:
.
.[click the jpg to enlarge it into a high resolution picture]

.
.
001.b. here it is again, in terms of UB's publicly available electronic documents: UB's 1998 homepage labeling naturopathy "science" (see http://web.archive.org/web/19981205021135/http://www.bridgeport.edu/):

"health sciences [...include] naturopathy."

002. just what kind of science, precisely, is naturopathy?

002.a. foremost, naturopathy is obligated to vitalism and supernaturalism:

002.a1. naturopathy's obligatory vitalism, specifically at UB (see http://animatisticnapantheism111.blogspot.com/).

002.a2. naturopathy's obligatory supernaturalism, specifically in UB's current catalog [p.070-071] (see http://www.bridgeport.edu/include/pdf/academics/UBCat0608_Schools.pdf).

note: the 2008 UB catalog linked to above, on p.070, tells us that:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles [e.g. vitalism, supernaturalism] upon which its practice is based. The principles are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances." As if such principles survive scientific scrutiny!!!

003. in reality, what does science say about vitalism and supernaturalism?

003.a. vitalism is profoundly science-ejected (see http://novfsinscience.blogspot.com/).

003.b. supernaturalism is profoundly science-ejected (see http://sciencerejectssupernaturalism0000.blogspot.com/).

004. therein, the kind of science this is is the nonscientific kind!!! Where is what's labeled essentially scientific not essentially scientific by a long shot...

UB naturopathy, a land of nonsense -- and a form of epistemic fraud.

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."

University of Bridgeport's Falsehood 2008 - Their Naturopathic 'Confidence Game':

[ten years ago this month, I began an ND at UB, and therein, I gained expertise in these matters over the course of four years there. Overall, I consider naturopathy to be 'an unethical sectarian pseudoscience.' Here's my commemoration page].

a warning, from one who was snookered, concerning UB's game of labeling their 'naturopathic program educational product' as "professional" and "science" [see 01. below], when naturopathy is essentially about falsely representing profoundly -- for decades and centuries -- nonscientific premises like vitalism [see 02. below] and supernaturalism [see 03. below] as scientific [for what science says, see 04. below] through the use of a confidence-building "university" & "professionally accredited" veneer:

01. the University of Bridgeport states in "UB Spotlight: Health Sciences Programs":

"the University's professionally accredited health sciences programs [...include] the College of Naturopathic Medicine [...our] Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) [degree] offer[s] state-of-the-art curricula [...] the members of the faculty include skilled instructors with backgrounds in the biomedical and clinical sciences";

Note: UB's use of the label SCIENCE upon the naturopathic, and their emphasis on "state-of-the-art," profession's level curricula, with a skilled SCIENCE faculty. Let's shine my spotlight a little closer, to see the actual-underneath of the naturopathic, below this veneer:

02. vitalism is at the heart of naturopathy:

"guiding principle # 1: the healing power of nature, viz [sp., vis] medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [...] guiding principle #3: the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself";

Note: UB's claim is that there is a 'purposeful life spirit' bioagency that is scientific in fact. Here's an aggregation of naturopathy's essential vitalism;

03. supernaturalism is at the heart of naturopathy:

"Dean's welcome [...] are you interested in a career in a field of medicine that works to support the natural healing power of the body, mind, and spirit? In naturopathic medicine we call this vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature), and it is our guiding philosophy";

Note: here's an aggregation of naturopathy's essential supernaturalism;

04. meanwhile, science PROFOUNDLY rejects and does not support vitalism and does not support supernaturalism;

Note: as Stephen Novella, MD recently wrote,

"it is a menace to the public when governments license nonsense. It is a betrayal of the public trust, it diminishes all professionalism, and it generally propagates confusion in an area where licensure is meant to provide clarity. One egregious example is naturopathy [...] naturopaths are health care pseudoscientists. Essentially, they are what happens when medicine is completely disconnected from science, evidence, and even common sense";

what to take away from all this:

UB absurdly labels what is profoundly nonscientific as scientific, from the confidence-building position of a "University" claiming a 'professions-level science curriculum' -- this is flim-flam; and what's even worse, UB claims that this confidence game complies with the ethical standards of the professions!

BTW, here's the definition of a "confidence game":

"the elements of the crime of the confidence game are (1) an intentional false representation to the victim as to some past or present fact . . . (2) knowing it to be false . . . (3) with the intent that the victim rely on the representation . . . (4) the representation being made to obtain the victim's confidence. . . And thereafter his money and property" [from "Law Dictionary" (ISBN 0764119966, 2003)].

1010 WINS On Naturopathy - Science-Illiterate Journalism:

here we have the very false claim that 'the naturopathic is firmly scientific:'

01. Walter Geis reports for 1010 WINS {2008-08-11}, in "Naturopathic Cancer Care: Not as Crazy as it Sounds":

"naturopathic doctors [...] treat the body naturally and let it use its own healing powers [{this is a code}...] the science has been around since the late 1800s."

Note: we have, clearly stated, naturopathy's coded treatment context of 'the body's own healing powers,' and the claim that 'the naturopathic' is well-established "science."

02. we are referred to Dr. Prego's website, where he explains:

02.a. in "Long Island Naturopathic":

"I work with the philosophy of the healing power of nature [HPN, or as the article states, 'healing powers']."

Note: naturopathy 's overall treatment context is HPN. This is naturopathy's essential premise.

03. some analysis:

03.a. what is the HPN premise, specifically, to naturopathy?

HPN, or as the article states, 'the body's own healing powers,' is, specifically, naturopathy's defining belief in a 'purposeful life spirit' bioagency figmentation.

Note: this figment / article of faith is most-often coded {a form of abuse} -- Prego and WINS are good examples of this -- but, the public should know the truth, so as not to be snookered, and instead be able to make decisions which are well-informed.

03.b what is the scientific status of such vitalism-supernaturalism?

vitalism has been patently science-ejected for at least several decades, while supernaturalisms have not been scientifically supportable for a few hundred years. Naturopathy's 'bait and switch' is about falsely labeling science-ejected and science-unsupported beliefs scientific, and also to label what is supernatural in status as natural. To state, regarding the essentially naturopathic view [which is a vitalism-supernaturalism obligated belief system], that "the science has been around since the late 1800s," is SIMPLY ridiculous -- it is an example of profound science-illiteracy.

what to take away from this:

this article's claim that science supports what is essentially naturopathic -- that science supports naturopathy's vitalistic and supernatural figmentous context -- is PATENTLY FALSE. What kind of journalism is this? Journalism that hasn't checked its facts; journalism that is science-illiterate. When sectarian imaginary conceptions such as naturopathy's 'vitalistic-teleological-supernatural nonscientific principles' are labeled firmly scientific, and then the word "cancer" is stated...that is QUITE CRAZY.