Friday, January 19, 2007

Naturopathy's Blending of Science and the Supernatural!

[to return to the main document, click here, >http://standtoyourduty.blogspot.com<]
.
[suggested searches, particular to naturopathy:
per yahoo.com:
.
>"natural health sciences" that integrate mind body "spirit and nature"< {very Bastyr naturo.} here;
>reconciling harmonizing and unifying of nature humanity god< {quoting Lust, naturo.'s founder} here;]
.
.
a) some explanation concerning "epistemic conflation:"
.
Generally speaking, I employ this 'coupled term' to indicate statements, claims, modes, explanations, actions and areas that 'do not demarcate knowledge type' or 'fuse knowledge types.' And, when 'blended knowledge' -- a knowledge set containing that which is preponderantly NOT within science AND that which is with the scientific -- is radically and improperly termed unblended 'scientific knowledge' ['science + nonscience = science'; e.g., when naturopathy states that science bases the supernatural and the scientifically ejected or the unscienceable], I term it pseudoscience [false science, NOT science, a mislabeling, even at times a fraudulent enterprise].
.
[I 'coined' epistemic conflation, apparently; and I mention this not out of vanity, but as explanation; it's exceptionally rarely used, as web searches don't produce anything of 'label' category {which makes it an excellent metatag}; also, I didn't lift it from anywhere, and nobody taught me the term].
.
The experience I particularly developed this concept from and apply this term toward is naturopathy / naturopathic medicine.
.
Roughly, naturopathy blends knowledge that is a priori with knowledge that is a posteriori, and that is for me the essential epistemic conflation.
.
Specifically, naturopathy states that the supernatural / religious / faith-article / unevidenced {concepts like vitalism, spiritism, teleology-finalism etc.} IS science / scientific / science-based / 'in evidence' [while all of the former in status epistemically are excluded from the latter!; in terms of the preponderance of 'what science is,' epistemically -- empirical, sensuous, naturalistic, parsimonious etc.].
.
Epistemic conflation is the primary naturopathic agenda and mannerism.
.
Part and parcel with this naturopathic 'knowledge blending' mannerism is labeling the combination of knowledge types as science [an unblended knowledge type], creating the foundation of their supposed status as 'a branch of scientific medicine.'
.
I regard such as absurdity and nonsense.
.
The naturopathic agenda is to redefine what permissibly, reasonably, preponderantly is science and trade upon their mislabeling of science [mislabeled because within their 'science' is the supernatural, the unscienceable, the scientifically refuted / ejected, the unevidenced and kind].
.
Labeling that which preponderantly isn't science as science, then, obviously places naturopathy in the position of pseudoscience, and this is in terms of the essentially naturopathic [e.g., spiritism, theism, vitalism, supernaturalism, metaphysicalism, the unevidenced, idealism and kind].
.
Additionally, since naturopathy is of institutional status -- academically and politically, minimally -- I've often wondered if this movement is a kind of racketeering, particularly at the school and clinical level, since the public is placing trust in these misleading naturopathic institutional & clinical claims per education and treatment.
.
Naturopathy, in both of these relationships, therein has STATE-SANCTIONED POWER OVER THE SICK / VULNERABLE [the sick and vulnerable per the clinical, the vulnerable per the academic consumer who engages in a naturopathic education; medicine and educational institutions are state-sanctioned; and naturopathy in institutional status is permitted to practice medicine and practice education, whose duties are fiduciary in type!], and their position appears to me to be an abuse of POWER.
.
I don't think naturopaths, clinically and education-wise [though their principles demand "physician as teacher"], care for what a physician and educator is supposed to do: engage as a fiduciary with the public / society per the sick and the education consumer.
.
I wouldn't have to write about their mislabeled / epistemically conflated and pseudoscientific bullshit [and what else I've experienced] if they were highly ethical, because such abusive stuff wouldn't then happen categorically.
.
Again, and specifically, the naturopathic mannerism is to call what isn't scientific and science-based 'scientific.'
.
[Naturopathy's vitalism and spiritism beliefs are not much different than the findings of the recent Dover trial, concerning intelligent design creationism as NOT scientific but instead a religious view. I can't see how naturopathy's 'you must balance the life spirit; you must manipulate the body, mind, spirit; you must engage in personal spiritual development' foundation ISN'T religious in general type / sectarian in general type].
.
Like ID, the naturopathic agenda is to unlimit science to such an extent that immediate evidence is no longer necessary to support science-claims [therein, vagarities, articles of faith -- like spirits, vital forces, god(s) -- become 'scientific'].
.
Inventing a term -- epistemic conflation -- was necessary.
.
Functionally, a concise term was necessary, as such terms sometimes are, and it does the job well, at least for me.
.
To reiterate, what I specifically mean and what this term epistemic conflation specifically indicates is 'the blowing together or blending of knowledge type.'
.
The naturopathic verbiage, ultimately, for their 'knowledge conflation' is often "naturopathy combines" or "naturopathic medicine integrates" or "naturopathic medicine blends."
.
Sometimes this is termed 'of the whole' as 'holistic,' but this issue concerning wholes is at best vague: are we talking about what is within the scientific and the nonsectarian [this would NOT include supernaturalism, vitalism, spiritism, teleology-finalism, the unevidenced etc.], or are we including in the whole what is preponderantly outside what science supports and is sectarian [the vitalistic, the spiritistic, the unevidenced, 'that without evidence' and kind; specific articles of faith / belief]?
.
The most pernicious and usually covert epistemic conflation expression by naturopathy, ultimately, is 'a naturopath is the modern science-based primary care doctor,' 'naturopathy is science-based natural medicine,' and naturopathy is "science-based, vitalistic."
.
But, the essentially naturopathic [vitalism, spiritism and kind] must be known to then make such a judgment that they are therein talking nonsense [e.g., the scientific supernatural].
.
Naturopaths employ the language of science or a veneer of science and the modern, plus, minimally [covertly most often] the archaic prescientific and scientifically rejected / ejected, and/or the nonscientific, and/or the unscienceable per the 'naturopathic,' 'naturopathy,' 'nature cure,' or 'natural medicine' [i.e. supernaturalism, metaphysical holism (bodymindspirit), teleology-finalism, vitalism, animatism, animism, pantheism, spiritism, theism etc.].
.
These ideations are thrown all together and then called science, scientific, science-based [and other things 'the naturopathic' isn't, like nonsectarian], and therein is the overarching naturopathic pseudoscientific fraud pervading the entire naturopathic domain [but which I particularly know about through my four years at the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine].
.
What kind of crime or wrong it is I've no idea [it happened to me at a Connecticut, private, regionally-accredited, State- and Federally- sanctioned university, in my experience; a State which licenses and permits these practitioners WITHIN their own State-owned university hospitals! {e.g., the University of Connecticut}].
.
Such must be some kind of civil tort, minimally; but, beyond my own damage, I'm concerned about the public.
.
What laws or statutes are encompassed, I've no idea.
.
Perhaps, but not only, this encompasses 'unfair trade,' as it's without doubt a practice based upon a false posture and unsound, irrational premises that induce public engagement by abusing labels in more than one realm of commerce [naturopathic education -- yes; naturopathic independent clinical practice -- yes], while cornering one when training in naturopathy to be unethical [i.e. 'the supernatural is scientific,' 'our beliefs won't interfere with other beliefs,' and particularly through the AANP Alliance, "this is not a belief system," etc.] and to lie to people as a matter of naturopathic standard of practice ['we are a branch of medical science' etc.], and additionally, lots of money changes hands over it [schools, private practices, NIH grants, books sold etc.].
.
While medicine [including academic institutions acting as agents for a guild] must be held to the highest standard of fiduciary duty [this is indisputable; clinically, educationally], which is in category of ETHICS, a higher bar than the LEGAL.
.
Anyway, I don't know what to call the whole thing, except in my view it ethically stinks, it's seems both a criminal and a civil wrong [of whatever kind], as it's a well-organized, systematic type of fraud and mislabeling.
.
...and obviously it bothers me so greatly [and I don't count on the State of Connecticut for aid, they were informed by me of this general issue years ago; they are complicit; they have no objectivity in the matter etc.].
.
.
.
b) The 'living' document this terms applies to [which resides at the above address] is:
.
"'Prophets Facing Backward': Naturopathy and Knowledge Type from the Inside – The Epistemic Conflation of a School of Thought Claiming to be Scientific."
.
What's below is my fleshing out, in that larger document, of some operative definitions and defining examples:
.
.
[Epistemic conflation essentially means 'the blending of types of knowledge' -- e.g., the supernatural {spirit(s), god(s), vital force(s) etc. with the scientific; while the scientific is not such a blended knowledge type -- e.g., legitimate science does not include supernaturalism {spirit(s), god(s), vital force(s) etc.}, vitalism, spiritism, teleology-finalism and that which lacks evidence, etc.;
.
-definitions / usages (AHD, 4th ed.): epistemic, “of or relating to epistemology”; epistemology, “the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity”; to conflate, “to bring together; meld or fuse […] to combine into a whole”;
.
examples: Here are two examples of the naturopathic 'melding of all kinds of knowledge' mannerism -- per the most current (a, Bastyr), and and most foundational (b, 'the founder') -- their epistemic conflation / 'knowledge type blending' AND then 'mislabeling as delineated type' I can illustrate regarding naturopathy is their self-definition:
.
a) 2007: "the natural health sciences that integrate body, mind, spirit, and nature."
.
(click here, for an msn.com search of said naturopathic epistemic conflation,
per >natural health sciences integrate mind body spirit nature<,
.
b) 1902: "In 1902 Benedict Lust, considered the father of naturopathy, wrote: 'In a word [!], naturopathy stands for the reconciling, harmonizing and unifying of nature, humanity and god."
.
(click here,
.
[note on a & b: science is the overall claimed label {2007}, and 'body, mind, spirit, nature, god' are within it {2007, 1902}]
.
[with spirit preponderantly and reasonably the category that the vitalistic falls within {generally, see AHD def. below; specifically, see naturopathy luminary Pizzorno's ISBN 0761504338, p.024 'life force as spirit' while 'science based natural medicine' is his overall mislabeling for naturopathy}; and the belief in / articles of faith concerning a vital-force-spirit {VFS}, and spirit generally, I term spiritism {I don't mean the 'talking to the dead' stuff from 100 years ago}; and a belief in / article of faith concerning god(s), some version of theism;
.
-definitions / usages (AHD, 4th ed.): mislabel, "to label inaccurately"; delineate, "to draw or trace the outline of"; science, “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study"; integrate, "to make into a whole by bringing all parts together; unify; to join with something else; unite; to make part of a larger unit"; spirit, "the vital principle or animating force [VFS, explicitly] within living beings [...] a supernatural being"; god, "a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions [...] the force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being [...] a being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality";
.
- COMMENT: the overarching 'naturopathic self-description label,' wherein they state their category overall as 'science, scientific, science-based, branch of medical science' and whatnot, while science is NOT such an epistemic blending since 'the scientific' is a specific type /subset within all types of knowledge, in terms of epistemics -- rigorous, empirical, testable, provisional, methodological natural etc. -- this labeling of the epistemically delineated as the epistemically conflated, as naturopathy explicitly does -- is an absurdity and a stupidity; naturopathy is minimally, in my view, a form of intellectual dishonesty and categorical ignorance; something is not what it is different from -- particularly 'that in evidence' / of science and 'that without evidence' / of faith & supernatural; naturopathy poses, overall, the irrational {their mannerisms} as the rational {science}, the illogical as the logical; specifically posing 'naturopathic vitalism, spiritism, and teleology-finalism {sectarian doctrines and dogmas; the metaphysical, supernatural {spirits(s) & gods(s) etc.}, ideological etc.} and kind' as 'science, scientific, and science-based' is a masquerade, "a disguise or false outward show; a pretense […] an involved scheme, a charade" {again, I've not much clue as how this plays out legally; while ethically, it stinks};
.
(click here, for the American Heritage Dictionary and the www.answers.com reference suite,
.
.