Friday, February 03, 2006

 

As regards sCAMs : background & oxymoronies.

[to return to the main document click here, http://standtoyourduty.blogspot.com/]

.

[also, if you are interested in 'medical science fraud,' visit http://aanpalliancesciencebasedclaim.blogspot.com/]

.

.

.[a necessary quote]

“Let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.”

– J.B.S. Haldane.

[in “Daedalus, or Science and the Future,” 1923;

(click here, http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Daedalus.html;

or click here, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/books/review/Johnson.t.html)].

.

.

.

.[some background {I seem to continually alter this text! bear with me...'to blog' is a verb}]

.

The principle reason I decided to blog 'naturopathy / naturopathic medicine' was to share information that has come to me firsthand, at great cost -- e.g. wasted time [minimally, seven years 'in'], wasted money [currently I have six-figure student loan debt, and it's rising], wasted effort, lost opportunities that could have been chosen instead [like actual medical school and a career's income thereby; actual health science; actual scientific medicine etc.], and a 'lingering internal disarrangement' [I'll politely say, since in essence naturopathy is an orchestrated academic and clinical mindfuck]. The knowledge of what they're all about burns like a hot poker in my head: naturopathic medicine, that indelible poison in my life. I find myself stuck in the psychological state of someone who has left an abusive group. In sum, in other words, naturopathy derailed my life and now I'm forever stuck with the nauseating results, backward and forward -- of the financial, of the internal-psychological. Anyway, even if I wasn't directly 'of cannon fodder' due to the naturopathy racket, I'd hate naturopathy...because I hate frauds. And naturopathy is an exceptionally fraudulent kind of fraud: of a fraud kind so obviously fraudulent that one has to exclaim aloud with a "duh...this is such a strange, idiosyncratic, delusional and nonsensical, manipulative and lying domain trading on the epistemic and ethical contents and contexts of actual scientific medicine, science, health science, higher education, and the physician-patient / physician-society fiduciary relationship (minimally)...duh."

.

I currently teach medical and health science, medical ethics, medical laboratory, medical terminology, medical office procedures and lots of other stuff in a 'medical assistant' vocational / career school setting. So, I guess I can publish stuff on the web that relates to my academic field, and to my academic and clinical experience, in terms of my point of view of medicine and science and education, and kind of competently tour anyone interested through this 'fraudulent naturopathy issue.' I'm most interested in showing what naturopathy says and what others say, and then we do some THINKING (as opposed to blindly believing).

.

.

.[a poignant context]

.

Perhaps this blogging can be thought of as my naturopathic medical school thesis or dissertation: you know, the one that couldn't be written in naturopathy school at UBCNM because it exposes / dismantles the naturopathic irrational edifice -- per the ethical thing to do, the academically proper and scholastically proper thing to do.

.

[I could not criticize the naturopathic facade /swindle / racket at UB from within UBCNM. It was a command curriculum and theirs' was a command mentality, as in 'be it or leave {e.g., vitalism}, be it or not graduate {e.g., a vitalist}, do this fraud crap or not graduate {e.g., homeopathy}' -- totalizing, programming. Criticism within such a 'top down, doctrine-centered' organizational environment is not much different from this situation {as an example of the academic-ridiculous}:

e.g.: joining a highly orthodox religious academic area and 'scholastically disavowing / eroding / refuting / dissenting' from that orthodoxy's 'central beliefs / articles of faith / mannerisms' as the topic of one's 'required degree thesis / dissertation' by asking for scientific proof / evidence {I'm still waiting for naturopathy to meet that 'scientific bar' concerning the scientific status of the vitalistic and spiritistic, for instance} / by demanding academic rigor / and by pointing out the grossly irrational. In essence, it's academically ridiculous to accurately 'call' a college's academics and clinicians {that spur of the naturopathy profession / institution} deluded, unethical, highly confused, scientifically illiterate, exploiting liars {their naturopathy project} and yet, then, somehow expect to get such a thesis approved / your degree. I don't think that's likely! And why would I want to deal with such a community / become a member of such a fraudulent and scientifically illiterate community anyway!].

.

[And just to recap: I cannot and do not believe: that vital force spirit (VFS, 'purposeful life spirit' aka chi, prana, life force, vital force, vis medicatrix naturae, biofield, animal magnetism etc.) exists, or that spirits exist in general, or in teleology-finalism or any supernatural entities or views overall; while UB & FNPLA AANP naturopathy expressedly states that these articles of faith {the supernatural spiritistic, the vitalistic, the wacko teleology-finalistic -- the 'not scientifically evidenced or necessary' and 'nonscientific'} are within the 'scientific,' the 'science-based,' and that naturopathy and its beliefs constitute a 'branch of medical science' that is 'not a belief system'; as I cannot see how any of 'these naturopathy-essential ideas / this kind of knowledge' can be 'science-based' or 'scientific' or 'objectively observed' (a posteriori) as they are unevidenced 'articles of faith / belief / of the religious / supernatural / idealistic / metaphysical (a priori) and kind' {and to combine the two is epistemic conflation; to mislabel it science is fraud} -- such are figments.

{for figment, click here, per Roget's Thesaurus(1995), >http://www.answers.com/figments<, "any fictitious idea accepted as part of an ideology by an uncritical group; a received idea: [a] creation, fantasy, fiction, invention, myth. See belief/unbelief, real/imaginary"].

.

.

.[future possible semiautobiography]

.

I sometimes now call it all:
.

"Spy in the House of Naturopathy: the Adventures of Dr. Bob Ironic in the Realm of Dean Huckster, Professor Guru, and Dr. Quack."

[broadest, with all characters -- including myself -- quite absurd].

.[or]

"Sows at the Trough of Ideology."

.

[when I'm in some sense attempting to shorten the contents of this into something more terse; critical of consumer and practitioner alike; or specifically -- disgusted].

.[or]

"The Epistemic Conflation of a School of Though Claiming to be Scientific."

.


[the best academic accuracy / terseness that I can muster; at my most level and to the point; since naturopaths {the academic particularly} do not demarcate knowledge kind {they conflate, or blend; i.e., the supernatural and the scientific} as compared to the boundaries preponderantly / reasonably acknowledged in terms of knowledge typology; yet they claim to be a demarcated knowledge kind {scientific, science-based, nonsectarian}; the oxymorony of a nondemarcated demarcation -- what a pile of horseshit].

.

.

.[on epistemics, epistemology, roughly demarcating knowledge type]

.

It is epistemics that hold the key, perhaps. I can't see how a field [naturopathy] can actually KNOW ANYTHING in any kind of modern, useful, serious, ethical, professional and particularly SCIENTIFIC manner if it doesn't demarcate / acknowledge the HOW or the MEANS which INHERENTLY AND UNAVOIDABLY determine the types / characteristics of knowledge -- without epistemic delineation, naturopathic medicine is a poseur's language game and an 'exploitation project.' And since we live in the age of information and information is often employed as a 'knowledge claim' by fields and their agents to induce various types of gain -- the financial, popularity, the personal etc. -- obviously the game / project can become quite harmful. The naturopathic agenda is not much different than the Discovery Institutes's 'wedge document' goal: to increase the footprint of science to such an extent that a priori nonparsimonious {that is knowledge, and explanatory mannerisms} [e.g., the supernatural, the metaphysical, the idealistic and kind] content is considered scientific. [If you haven't kept score, 'creation science / intelligent design,' on more than one occasion -- and most recently in Dover, PA -- has been barred from public school science class as a specific sectic / sectarian agenda / violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in specifically supporting an 'of the religious' article of faith in the guise of 'a false science controversy,' and therein inherently is nonscientific and thus not appropriate for a science context. In trivial note: naturopathy and the DI are both based in the same region, the Northwest Portland-Seattle area (I don't sense much in the coincidence, but I do see similar 'science-unlimitation' agendas)].

.

.

.[the central issue]

.

I'll restate the central issue in plain terms: naturopathic medical education is an elaborate fraud, i.e. a swindle, a sCAM, a racket. [I think I have to acknowledge Paul Lee {http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/about_paul_lee.html} for the acronym {http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/sCAM.html}, but I can't really say who the coiner of it is or where I first read it, except it's not me {though my 'take' is my own}; and I state this all from an intellectual point of view, to the best of my education, research, and intellect] because:

.

.

a) naturopathy nullifies the idea that there actually is a difference between epistemic types [their unlimited science, for example, that contains 'what lacks evidence, what is not scienceable'], things that make sense and don't [what I call their oxymorony], and society-acknowledged distinctions and definitions [minimally];

.

.

and then,

.

b) naturopathy trades [literally, per commerce, in a few categories] on the reputation of areas or professions or language which are based upon epistemic delineation and stringent fiduciary duty [scientific medicine, for example] -- as if naturopathy itself were so rigorous and non-atypical {sui generis}, and has and does meet such standards of highest professional ethical obligation [which it doesn't; to have it both ways is exploitative, parasitic, abusive; and it unravels its own foundation].

.

.

.[snippet of oxymoronies; better list on the bottom of this page]

.

.

Some of the oxymoronic / illogic impressions that quickly come to mind concerning naturopathy include: 'unethical ethicalness,' 'unlawful lawfulness,' 'rigorously accredited nonsense,' 'nonscience science,' 'scientific supernaturalism,' 'immaterial materialism,' 'sectic nonsectarianism,' 'unprofessional professionalness,' 'the modern archaic' {i.e. http://www.yncnaturally.com/whatNM.html, naturopathy as " ages-old (yet extremely modern)"}, 'the blended distinct,' 'the progressive regressive,' 'the specialist general practitioner,' 'a super-science pseudoscience curriculum,' 'the science-based imaginary' etc. Since 'naturopathy blends,' oxymorony is rampant.

.

.

.[their allies]

.

Another central issue is how many independent and government agencies and entities are complicit in or enable the naturopathic project / racket -- certain types of gatekeepers have failed to protect the citizenry. They are now the shoulders that naturopath stands upon to put within their reach 'that which what naturopathy shouldn't be able to get its hands upon' -- credibility [unless the irrational and unreasonable and fraudulent is a doorway to credibility!].

.

.

.[this dissenter]

.

As to why I am apparently a sole voice per 'from the inside,' a 'faction-of-one'? I've no idea, and I really don't care about that. The argument stands or falls on its own merits. I present direct quotes, I carefully cite my references, and the reader will form their own opinion 'upon the preponderance.'

.

What I will say is that 'I've never been a sow at the trough of ideology,' and I've never stopped thinking, because that's who I am. I refuse to be habituated, inured, indoctrinated, and unethical -- I am not 'ideological cannon fodder' and I will not exploit the public as a naturopathic metaphysician pretending to be an ethical, educated, knowledgeable, professional physician. Such were / are the unethical means and goals of higher education at UBCNM that I've experienced, in my view -- all sanctioned, by the State [as in government, en masse], to mindfuck. I think that unless you join a seminary or something up-front nonsecular, a priori, dogmatic and immutable [which naturopathy is, turns out -- a belief system posing as scientific medicine] -- wherein you have agreed up-front after a full disclosure to a doctrine that is, so to speak, sui generis, as opposed to an entity trading on typical definitions falsely, LURING AND UNABLE TO DELIVER - like naturopathy's unlimitation of science, as a 'science' of its own kind that includes scientifically rejected and unsupported knowledge [like the supernatural, metaphysical, idealistic and kind], but not a science of the acknowledged preponderant kind, per they're 'we're scientific anyway' 'autoendorsement' -- i.e. 'I will now explain the animatistic divine healing force governing all of reality through quantum physics blather' [what I call the 'reductionistic mystical holisticism oxymorony'] that can never be mainstream science, if you know your science and you understand epistemic delineations.

.

.

.[to the point: sCAMs]

.

I. these parameters come to mind concerning a so-called Complementary and Alternative Medicine [a sCAM] (no idea what to call naturopathy's 'integrated medicine' other / newer self-declared epistemically conflating alias; their other self-branding):

.

.

I.01. an ALTERNATIVE (a VIABLE alternative):

.

-must have been shown in gross [large] extent to be as reliably productive in effect [actual];

.

(i.e., a farm tractor as an actual alternative to an oxen-drawn steel plow IS an alternative; a magic carpet as NOT an actual alternative to an airplane);

.

I.02. what is COMPLEMENTARY (ACTUALLY complementary):

.

-must NOT radically annul / contradict / antithetically compare to the premises and productivity of a known, viable, reliable means;

.

(to radically redefine the scientific so that anything is then scientific is not complementary to the acknowledged scientific, since it annuls distinction, and the acknowledged scientific relies upon distinction; thus their 'complementarity' is not an addition, it is a radical replacement worldview, e.g. they believe they can skip the required science-vetting part and simply state that they already are scientific (refine science into a sui generis 'science' autoendorsement; scientific by idiosyncratic label, not by preponderant process), SO what is complementary about such a science-is-anything / science-annulling / science-unlimited radical worldview autoendorsement?) [and remember that stringent vetted science is the best means to figure out how things work in the world that we live in; as a method, acknowledged science is a known, viable, reliable means];

.

I.03. overall:

.

-the 'unsupported scientifically' is not an ALTERNATIVE as it is of different kind, and when supported per scientific medicine whatever that 'it' may be becomes a part of regular medicine anyway in kind - since there is only scientific medicine and what has not scientific support, since kinds are different; the so-called COMPLEMENTARY which embraces a wacky, exceptionally radical, science-unlimiting worldview that does not actually require 'acknowledged scientific' vetting is reliable-knowledge-annihilating and not an 'addition' to what's known at all;

.

I.04. therefore:

.

-What we call 'complementary and alternative' medicine (CAM) is none such in kind, it is actually not actual -- therefore, 'so-called' or 'supposed.' CAM is comprised of unvetted assertions which aren't therefore alternatives, that CAM people like naturopathy are guaranteeing as ALTERNATIVE and also COMPLEMENTARY in kind. They assert that they've vetted it all very rigorously scientifically while they annul the rigorous parameters which science operates within, particularly per naturopathy, and there is nothing complementary about that -- instead that is contradictory. AND, having taken money for it, particularly per UBCNM naturopathy...they therefore are sCAMING.

.

II. this comes to mind concerning BEING sCAMed:

.

-somebody takes your money in exchange for something they knowingly haven't described properly, like a position or area which they've purposely or naively mislabeled [deliberately{or even accidentally, whatever they've done they are accountable for, they have shirked an important responsibility -- in a just society, particularly as concerns institutions];

.

-they've misled you, cashed your check, and can't deliver what they've promised EVER;

.

-'it's not what you paid for' and they knew it;

.

.

.

***Naturopathic Medicine / Naturopathy is such a sCAM / fraud***

.

.

.[concerning fraud]

.

[Wikipedia on fraud {per 12-17-06}:

“in the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent 'discoveries' in art, archeology, and science […] in criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them — usually, to obtain property or services from him or her unjustly. Fraud can be accomplished through the aid of forged objects. In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called ‘theft by deception,’ ‘larceny by trick,’ ‘larceny by fraud and deception’ or something similar. In academia and science, fraud can refer to academic fraud - the falsifying of research findings which is a form of scientific misconduct - and in common use intellectual fraud signifies falsification of a position taken or implied by an author or speaker, within a book, controversy or debate, or an idea deceptively presented to hide known logical weaknesses”;

.

(click here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud)]

.

.

.

.[copious examples]

.

of the fraud of naturopathy including such oxymoronic positions [positions so illogical and irrational that in my view they can also be termed horseshit; aka 'contradictory nonsense positions'; 'naturopathic epistemic mislabeling nonsense'; by naturopathic oath, creed, standard of practice {including their 'therapeutic order'}, & mannerism] as:

.

+'natural health' science; 'science-based natural medicine' (a Bastyr slogan, and particularly a Pizzorno slogan; in their mission statements; while 'natural health' is essentially supernaturally concerned {naturopathic vitalism, spiritism, metaphysical holism, idealism, teleology-finalism and kind}; while science doesn't contain the supernatural, idealistic, metaphysical and the 'outside of science' and the 'that which cannot be scientifically verified');

.

(searches per >naturopathic "natural health science"<:

per google here, per msn here, per yahoo here);

.

.

.

+the science-based vitalistic (an NCNM slogan / label / their mission, see their Peterson's article immediately below {an epistemic conflation, of course -- the vitalistic / idealistic / supernaturalistic / metaphysical has been duly discarded from science proper along the same lines as the once vogue 'phlogiston theory,' Galenic medicine, geocentricism etc.!!!})

.

[i. a textual citation:

.

(click here for Peterson's College Guide(2006),
http://oracle-web.petersons.com/ccc92/display_pdf?p_instance_id=145966.pdf)

(or, click here,
http://www.petersons.com/)
[registration is free, search the database per "vitalistic" wherein you get NCNM {the trunk of the naturopathic tree}]

.

"[per NCNM, the oldest AANP ND program] the N.D. degree program is an intensive four-year graduate program that prepares students to become naturopathic physicians. Naturopathic medicine is a science-based, vitalistic philosophy and practice rooted in the principle vis medicatrix naturae [VMN], the healing power of nature [HPN; rooted in epistemic conflation, that is the bogus claim of EVIDENCE of the vitalistic VFS, spiritistic and kind through or within science -- a pseudoscience; of 'the naturopathic' being WITHIN the scientific, a fraud...] N.D.’s work with patients to restore health by stimulating the body’s innate healing capacity[...] as part of a supportive, close-knit community drawn together by the College’s mission, students pursue a vitalistically grounded [VFS=VMN=HPN supposedly within 'the scientific, the science-based'; the oxymorony of being metaphysically or idealistically or supernaturally 'grounded'] and rigorous [how is unlimited science rigorous??? when the vitalistic is the scientific, I call that laxity not rigor!!!] academic clinical program. The College is authorized to grant the N.D. and M.S.O.M. degrees by the state of Oregon through the Office of Degree Authorization. The College is accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU). The Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) accredits the N.D. program. In addition, the Council of Education of the Canadian Naturopathic Association recognizes the College, as do all state and provincial boards of naturopathic examiners. The Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (ACAOM) accredits the M.S.O.M. program [entities who are accessories, enablers -- in my view]";

.

.

ii. something else of this, visual:

.

(at >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itXSVBySX2U<; it reads:

.

"Naturopathy's 'Science-Based Vitalistic' Oxymoronic Claim: a) Science: It is reasonable to regard the contemporary label "science-based" as encompassing knowledge claims that are seriously 'in evidence.' This can be termed 'empirically evidenced.' Overall, such knowledge claims are able to 'clear the bar' in terms of modern science's empirical standards, and they become generally accepted. This can be termed a 'consensus.' Additionally, immediate evidence, in the scientific sense, must economically justify the theoretical explanations generated from the findings. This can be termed 'parsimony.' Furthermore, though misused in lay language as meaning speculative or even fictitious, the theoretical and theory, in science, is not only evidence-laden, it is testable in the sense that it generates predictions that, when experimentally explored, further scientific advance through their confirmation or refutation. In other words, that which is highly in evidence as "science-based" occurs after experimental research, vetting by science-peers, and publication in a journal of high scientific standard -- with these theoretical findings always open to later alteration, be it refutation or adjustment. b) Vitalism: It is reasonable to regard the 'vitalistic' as the immaterial-spiritual-metaphysical- unscienceable, (vitalistic spiritistic woo-woo) particularly in this sense: a typical definition of vitalism, to paraphrase, is that some empirically immeasurable 'stuff' or 'energy' or 'force' is needed {in addition to the actual matter, energy, and forces known within science -- whose findings are physicalistic / in evidence} to permit 'life.' When 'it' is dysfunctional, you are ill; when 'it' is working proper, you are well; when 'it' leaves, you are dead. The vitalistic is immaterial in the sense that it is imperceptible to instrumentation and sensation. The vitalistic is spiritual in that, as even an idiot can see historically (maybe -- idiots are very unreliable), it is a direct descendant of the idea of a deity-imbued 'breath of life,' such as within stories of various deities forming objects out of dirt / clay and then enspiriting them, by breathing upon them -- literally 'spir' meaning breath. Metaphysics can be categorized as the nonphysical, literally 'beyond.' And being immeasurable, and essentially supernatural (see Pizzorno ISBN 076151094X ), the vitalistic-spiritistic is out of the picture when it comes to science, since since is empirical and naturalistic. Vitalism and spiritism is therein unscienceable. c) NOW THINK: naturopathy's "science-based, vitalistic" is an oxymoron (literally, the sharp and the dull). It is a contradiction, e.g., similar to stating 'it' is a type of knowledge that is IN evidence, it is a type of knowledge that LACKS evidence." The vitalistic as not science-baseable cannot then be science-based. To state the "science-based vitalistic" is akin to stating the "science-based non-science-based." What I can call this, overall, is "an epistemic stupidity." Visiting this upon the population with impunity, well, I call that an extreme social injustice." (at http://oracle-web.petersons.com/ccc92... ). (music DBI, 'for pcg0407'). (for more skepticism concerning naturopathy, visit http://standtoyourduty.blogspot.com );

[youtube link.


.]

iii. another something specific & visual:

.

(at, >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3GZpmcDqU4<; its caption reads:

.

"Here, I tour the claim by NCNM / National College of Natural Medicine, a 'thoroughly vitalistic' institution in terms of its stated mission and degree programs, that the vitalistic is scientific: per their "science-based, vitalistic." FYI, vitalism is a concept discarded by modern biology. It has been scientifically ejected. The "science-based, vitalistic" exists as a oxymoronic ignorant slogan, merely -- since a 'vital force spirit' is a fiction & myth, like the Tooth Fairy, phlogiston, geocentrism etc., and an article of faith. The irony or even the oxymorony of being 'grounded in the metaphysical-unevidenced faith-based' or as the AANP often says, the 'underlying,' should not be lost. (music by Spacecat, 'lazy nothing'). (for more skepticism regarding naturopathy, see http://standtoyourduty.blogspot.com)";

[youtube link.


.]

[In my view, you are just as likely or likely more likely to be misled TODAY, NOW {e.g. that the vitalistic is the scientific -- that's horseshit}, as when I read, believed and acted upon the mislabeled AANP Alliance / UB naturopathic literature {that horseshit} circa the MID-1990s; now the propaganda is in the main college guides -- and that's a horrid shame];

.

.

.

+vitalistic science (while science discarded the 'knowledge type' and laxity that vitalism is several decades ago!!!);

.

[searches: (per >naturopathic "vitalistic science"<: here goggle, here msn, here yahoo);

(per >naturopathic "vital force" science<: here google, here msn, here yahoo)];

.
.
.

+science-based spirituality / spiritism (while science cannot base the supernatural per methodological naturalism etc.; science deals with evidence, and if evident...it's not spirit or supernatural...it is a natural event...the retreat of the 'religious' concerning events in the world is inverse to the scientific understanding of the universe etc. -- to state 'the supernatural is the scientific, within science, science-based' is to be epistemically illiterate);

.
.
.

+the unfound as foundation; the unbaseable as base (while science cannot be the foundation for the supernatural / metaphysical / ideological and kind, nor the science discarded, nor the unscienceable -- the 'without evidence,' the 'article of faith' is antithetical to the 'scientific');

.
.
.

+teleological science (while the naturopathic 'intelligent purposeful immaterial spiritual vital force' directing physiology from beneath physical reality cannot be -- since supernatural, metaphysical, ideological -- scientific; entelechy-driven teleology-finalism is well NOT of-science);

.
.
.

+the idealistic = scientific (while the ethereal / Rationalistic a priori is not the substantive a posteriori, never mind the rigorous scientific);

.
.
.

+metaphysical science (enough said);

.
.
.

+metaphysical holism science (their 'bodymindspirit' metaphysical-idealistic-supernatural modeling; while a bodymindspirit is an article of faith, due to the spirit part);

.
.
.

+animatism science (while science discarded vitalism {the animatistic being a generic life force concept});

.
.
.

+animism science (while science discarded vitalism {the animistic being a specifically characterized conception of life force concept});

.
.
.

+pantheism science (while world religions like Hinduism ayurveda are not science, and particularly not natural science -- but UB claims they are; I often lump it all together as ANAP {a play on AANP} -- 'animatistic New Age pantheism');

.
.
.

+Vedic science (same as above);

.
.
.

+Taoist science (same as above, except East Asian not South Asian);

.
.
.

+homeopathic science (is there anything dumber than homeopathy? etc.);

.
.
.

+naturopathic science (since when does science contain what's outside of science -- i.e., the vitalistic, the spiritistic, the supernatural, the teleological-finalistic, articles of faith, the 'without evidence' etc.; to claim naturopathy, with its unscientific, supernatural, unevidenced contents is a branch of medical science AS THEY DO is simply GROSSLY ACADEMICALLY NEGLIGENT & ABUSIVE);

.
.
.

+applied kinesiology science (the science of chi / qi / vital force, points, meridians, subluxations, muscle testing, skull tapping and all ... I don't think so etc.);

.
.
.

+antiscience science (when you unlimit science to the extent that naturopathy does, you destroy science...and then still call it science and trade on the label etc.);

.
.
.

+unlimited science (while science is a particular type of a posteriori delimited rigor, not a lax unlimitation of epistemic type to the extent that the 'supernatural, vitalistic, and the without evidence' is now within the scientific etc.);

.
.
.

+supernatural science (while science operates from the position of methodological naturalism etc.; the scientific establishment of the supernatural would be of Nobel Prize caliber, and Randi Foundation Million Dollar Prize caliber);

.
.
.

+spiritual science (same as above etc.);

.
.
.

+nonparsimonious science (while science abides by this heuristic: 'do not multiply entities needlessly'; 'if not ascribed by the evidence...');

.
.
.

+'anything-we-please-to-call-science-to-make-a-buck' science (what I see per sCAMs like naturopathy; use of the label 'science,' though NOT -- a fraud, a swindle, a mislabeling, so pseudo);

.
.
.

+pseudoscientific medically-sectarian medically-nonsectarian medical science (while scientific medicine desectarianized {as all of science}, it cast off its metaphysical and such biases and dogma {after something like 1200 years of stasis per 'Galenic medicine'} and is grounded in science; modern science and particularly human physiology does not model the body based upon the humors, or vital forces, or other spiritistic articles of faith);

.
.

[and so on...]

.
.

.[in closing this page, an oxymorony archetype]

"And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."

-- A.L. Tennyson [Idylls of the King]

.[as a tribute to this kind of naturopathic oxymorony, I've coined this new oxymorony]

"Having landed in the land-of-water, where I firmly floated-adrift."

-- RJC.

.[or, to be specifically epistemically oxymoronic, and as best as I'm aware the source {likely not primary} I first heard utter it is a naturopathic student, this CAPSTONE statement]

"True science is true religion."

...and I could go on.
.
['but I can't, so I will...'{to paraphrase Beckett, S.};
e.g., I was taught at UB in 1997 that "science [is] the new religion."

Labels: , , , ,


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?