Wikipedia on Science, Vitalism and Naturopathy - 2009-05-30:

here, I parse the current Wikipedia naturopathy entry in terms of science [see 001.a., below] and vitalism [see 001.b., below];

001. Wikipedia's current naturopathy entry states, regarding:

001.a. science & naturopathy:

"naturopathy (also known as naturopathic medicine or natural medicine) [...its] training differs from that undertaken by MDs in that it includes scientifically disproven modalities, such as homeopathy, often called [a] pseudoscience and quackery [...its] homeopathy is often characterized as pseudoscience [...] naturopathic medical school [...] includes the study of basic medical sciences [...] naturopathy as a field tends towards isolation from general scientific discourse [...] all forms of naturopathic education include concepts incompatible with basic science [...] naturopathic treatments such as homeopathy and iridology are widely considered pseudoscience or quackery [...quoting Atwood] 'an examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices' [hear, hear]."

Note: not science.

001.b. vitalism & naturopathy:

001.b1. within the Wikipedia naturopathy entry:

"naturopathy (also known as naturopathic medicine or natural medicine) [...] focuses on natural remedies and the body's vital ability to heal and maintain itself [{'vital' then links to the article parsed in 001.b2.}...] Lust [...] the 'father of U.S. naturopathy' [...] described the body in spiritual and vitalistic terms [...this] naturopathic ideology [...per] trusting to the 'healing power of nature' [...includes] rejection of biomedicine in favor of an intuitive and vitalistic conception of the body and nature [...per 'ND sectarian creed' tenet #2] recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae, a form of vitalism) [...naturopathy's] many methods rely on immaterial 'vital energy fields' [...naturopathy contains] concepts irreconcilable with modern medicine, such as vitalism [...] naturopathy is viewed with [scientific] skepticism for its reliance on or association with unproven, disproven, and controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings."

Note: vitalism is 'essential to the naturopathic'.

001.b2. within the linked Wikipedia vitalism entry:

"Bechtel and Richardson [of the 1998 Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy] state that today vitalism 'is often viewed as unfalsifiable, and therefore a pernicious metaphysical doctrine' [...and quoting Sokal] 'nearly all the pseudoscientific systems to be examined in this essay are based philosophically on vitalism' and [he] added that 'mainstream science has rejected vitalism since at least the 1930s, for a plethora of good reasons that have only become stronger with time' [{hear, hear}...and quoting Williams] 'today, vitalism is one of the ideas that form the basis for many pseudoscientific health systems [e.g., naturopathy] that claim that illnesses are caused by a disturbance or imbalance of the body's vital force'."

002. note: I am not involved in any way with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's naturopathy entry has improved. It was not long ago that Wikipedia defined the underpinning vitalism of naturopathy as an unqualified "natural life force", as if such a sectarian figmentation / premise / article of faith was prima facie fact. Yet, Wikipedia's naturopathic medical school article makes no mention of the unethical sectarian pseudoscience basis of naturopathy, and codes the vitalism.

The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism, & UBCNM: Wikipedia 2008:

here's a rather generic citation, from Wikipedia, concerning the HUGE scientific rejection of vitalism [see 001., below], while the University of Bridgeport, expressly vitalistic per their College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM; see 002.a., below] claims that naturopathy is science [see 002.b., below] while "science-based" medical advocates regard naturopathy as a "pseudoscientific cult" [see 003., below]:

001. the Wikipedia article "Philosophy of Biology" [accessed 2008-10-31] states:

"vitalism is the view, rejected by mainstream biologists since the 19th century, that there is a life-force (called the 'vis viva') that has thus far been unmeasurable scientifically that gives living organisms their 'life.' Vitalists often claimed that the vis viva acts with purposes according to its pre-established 'form' (see teleology). Examples of vitalist philosophy are found in many religions. Mainstream biologists reject vitalism on the grounds that it opposes the scientific method [it's antiscientific]. The scientific method was designed as a methodology to build an extremely reliable understanding of the world, that is, a supportable, evidenced understanding. Following this epistemological view, mainstream scientists reject phenomena that have not been scientifically measured or verified, and thus reject vitalism."

Note: vitalism, of any stripe, is scientifically rejected, rejected, rejected -- and blatantly ANTISCIENTIFIC.

002. meanwhile, naturopathy claims vitalism as a basis & an overarching label of science:

002.a. UBCNM states naturopathy's essential vitalism in "Six guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1, the Healing Power of Nature, Viz Medicatrix Naturae" currently [accessed 2008-10-31]:

"six guiding principles: guiding principle #1, the healing power of nature, viz 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. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process."

Note: this is also in UB's 2006-2008 catalog as:

"Principles and Practice 512 [...] the philosophical foundations of naturopathic medicine,
which form the basis for therapeutic intervention [...our] vitalistic medicine [...and] Principles and Practice 522 [...our premise of] the vital force and its role [as bioagency] in the healing process [p.291]".

002.b. UBCNM labels naturopathy overall "science":

002.b1. in "College of Naturopathic Medicine", currently [accessed 2008-10-31]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of primary health care — an art, science and practice of preventing, diagnosing and treating conditions of the human mind and body [...within our] Health Science Center."

Note: this "science" label is also used by UB at "UB Spotlight: Health Science Programs" [accessed 2008-10-31]:

"the University's professionally accredited health sciences programs are housed in the Fones School of Dental Hygiene, the College of Chiropractic, the College of Naturopathic Medicine, the Acupuncture Institute, and the Nutrition Institute."

Note: UB claims that this ridiculous basis of 'science-ejected science' meets the standards of 'the professions'!!!

002.b2. in "Dean's Welcome", 2002 archive per the then UBCNM Dean:

"today's naturopathic physician serves on the front line of health care as a primary care physician, practicing scientific medicine."

Note: UBCNM currently states this as well in "Today's Naturopathic Medicine" [accessed 2008-10-31]:

"today's naturopathic physician serves on the front line of health care as a primary care physician, practicing scientific medicine."

003. Dr. Atwood has written at "Science-Based Medicine" that this 'quite absurd naturopathic medicine thing' is a "pseudoscientific cult" per "Another State Promotes the Pseudoscientific Cult that is 'Naturopathic Medicine'".