Concerning the "Textbook of Naturopathic Medicine, 3rd. Ed.":

2006-12-02T10:48:00.000-08:00

[appended from a review I've posted at amazon.com, for that click here, >http://www.amazon.com/Textbook-Natural-Medicine/dp/0443073007/sr=8-1/qid=1158002550/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8467310-4429561?ie=UTF8&s=books<]

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

[for my MP3.com spoken version of this review, click here,
>http://www.mp3.com/robert-j.-cullen/artists/21730396/songs.html<]

.
.
.
.[per 12-02-2006]
.
.
I recently viewed the new chapter concerning 'naturopathic philosophy' [in the 3rd edition, 2005, ISBN 0443073007] 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].
.
[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" [here, >http://standtoyourduty.blogspot.com/<) and "Why I Dropped Out of Naturopathy School" (here,>http://ooeeooahahooeewallawallabingbang.blogspot.com/< ] - online per me, Rob Cullen.
.
.
[THIS is future healthcare?
.

e.g.: the Seattle Post Intelligencer states, in “A Deadly Cancer, A Winning Fight”{per Black, C. (? ?)}{03-21-2007},

“Dr. Mark Gignac, a naturopathic physician at the center, calls naturopathic medicine the wave of the future [...and states] in health and disease, nutrition is the main component [prove it]”;

(click here,

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/308476_pancreas22.html)

Overall, naturopathy's position is that what is "science-based" no longer requires immediate empirical evidence (e.g., they claim vitalism, spiritism, teleology and kind {the metaphysical, the ideological, the supernatural and kind} are scientific) -- and that's all rather archaic, not futuristic -- in my view. So, I disagree, these prophets are truly 'facing backward,' unless the future is comprised of the destruction of science in the sense of its modern characteristics, and any kind of knowledge is to be accepted as scientific knowledge.].

.
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"), teleology-finalism ("intelligent, purposeful") and 'whatever else idealism' AREN'T science-based (or even empirical phenomena, as in therefore 'not scienceable')].
.
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 'sectarian medicine'}].
.
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, 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, the metaphysical, or the idealistic; and vitalism and spiritism, in terms of physiological agency, are refuted biological hypotheses.
.
-rc.
.
.

This is NOT Scientific Medicine: Naturopathy.

Concerning the "Textbook of Naturopathic Medicine, 3rd. Ed.":