Quote:
Originally Posted by prizefighterinferno
But as you said, some aspects may be legit, some may not.
|
Determining which is which cannot be done using naturopathic "methodology" - a certain indicator that it is fundamentally flawed. I could make up some bizarre treatment today, try it out on some people tomorrow, claim it works the next day, and by 2010 it could be the next "holistic medical miracle" without any naturopath being able to definitively say, "No, jammies' Willow Branch Colonic Imploder is the work of a charlatan" - because there is no way within the discipline to tell.
That an informed layman can authoritatively say that it is bunk, is *why* it is bunk - that is the point that is continually missed by the proponents of all these types of pseudo-sciences. I don't need to be an engineer to know that a building with no foundation will fall. I don't need to be a lawyer to know that running old ladies over in the street is against the law. I don't have to have an accountant's designation to see that a $5 bill won't pay the rent. Similarly, I don't need to be a doctor to know that naturopathy is not real medicine, and that *some* doctors think there is something in it is because doctors are no more immune to bad logic than the rest of us - they SHOULD know better, but some doctors smoke, too, don't they?