Skip to main content
Customer Review
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on May 20, 2006
I recently viewed the new chapter concerning 'naturopathic philosophy' [in the 3rd edition, 2005] within this text at the University of Bridgeport's library, as there's a naturopathic school there that I attended. The chapter discusses the premises of 'the naturopathic.' Do you really want to be treated by a physician who conflates (blends) supernatural, nonscientific, scientifically discarded, idealistic, metaphysical, religious and scientific information -- and presents the whole thing as [supposedly] scientific? [a misrepresentation: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District anyone?]. Check out "The Epistemic Conflation of a School of Thought Claiming to be Scientific" and "Why I Dropped Out of Naturopathy School" - online per me, Rob Cullen. [THIS is future healthcare? I disagree, these prophets are truly 'facing backward']. I'm highly ethically disturbed by this text and naturopathy, still. I'll just make one point about this book's contention that complexity, self-regulation, and evolution indicate that life defies the laws of natural science {and is therefore supernatural} -- particularly the second law of thermodynamics, per physics, in terms of life as supposedly being antientropic as indicated by life's evolving complexity [p.081-082] -- therefore justifying, particularly, vitalism and its handmaiden teleology-finalism. [Beliefs essential to 'the naturopathic'; explanations no longer within science at all; rejected-knowledge in terms of the scientific].[Yes, evolution! Even though evolution is actually the culmination of 'methodological naturalism,' which is HOW science approaches phenomena, that is: SCIENCE DOES NOT INVOKE THE SUPERNATURAL {which includes ideas like naturopathy's vitalism, spiritism and kind}, science determines its contents based upon EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, and exceptionally LEAN explanatory approaches {per parsimony: as in 'do not multiply entities needlessly'; that is, if not ascribed by the evidence, IT ISN'T A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION}]. Ah, HUGE problem. The second law deals with closed systems and life's context is within an open system, in terms of thermodynamics. [For the compliance of the 'living' with thermodynamic law, see Atwater & Rosa's work in 1897 which specifically speaks in terms of the first law {the Kinesiology Dept. of Rice University has a nice web page on biological thermodynamics}; and see 'Biological Thermodynamics' ISBN 0521795494 {p.321 specifically speaks in terms of the second law}]. UB says NDs practice "scientific medicine" and naturopathy is "health science." Hmmm, what kind of [supposed] science text gets something so simple WRONG? Naturopathy is a 'self-labeled science-based' area that won't let go of what has not been considered scientific [the supernatural, the metaphysical, the idealistic, the scientifically-refuted and -discarded -- and kind; i.e., the tenets of their doctrines] for several decades PLUS. This text reflects naturopathic 'epistemic mislabeling nonsense' [e.g. naturopathy's vitalism ("life force"), spiritism ("personal spiritual development; body, mind, spirit"), autoentheism ("god-power within"), teleology-finalism ('life force' as "intelligent, purposeful, goal-directed") and 'whatever else idealism'/ woo-woo AREN'T science-based (or even empirical phenomena, as in therefore 'not scienceable') -- but are falsely labeled as scientific by naturopathy anyway]. In reality, minimally, a mandatory, manipulatable, spiritual, 'underlying' {metaphysical, supernatural, idealistic and what-not} 'life force' {of many aliases} immediately responsible for states of health and disease is INSTEAD AN ARTICLE OF FAITH {aka a 'sectarian medicine' belief set}. Hmmm: "the most thoroughly researched and carefully referenced text on natural medicine has been revised to include the most up-to-date information...." It has been a couple of months since I read that chapter, and I'm still, honestly, LAUGHING OUT LOUD. Naturopathy is, essentially, a 'supernatural science' (an oxymoron; particularly, vital-force-spirit, spiritism, autoentheism, and teleology-finalism as "science-based" are arrived at through a radical unlimiting of the boundaries of 'the scientific'); while evidence from science doesn't support the supernatural / theistic, the metaphysical, or the idealistic; and vitalism and spiritism, in terms of physiological agency, are refuted biological hypotheses. -rc.
