Originally Posted by Ligeia
Naturopaths typically offer treatments that have no net positive effect, or are unable to beat the placebo effect. Complimentary and Alternative Medicine is almost exclusively nonsense, but I'd be interested to hear more about how you think that it is both a more "critical" and "co-creative" form of science, when naturopathy is based on completely unscientific premises.
Why would Autism diagnoses increase? Could it be because there was a significant change in understanding the diagnosis of autism, starting in 1991? Why is it that mercury based vaccines started in the 1930's, yet the autism "epidemic" didn't start until the 90's? Why is it that, since removing thimerosal from most vaccines in 1999, there has not been a statistically significant change in autism rates? Why is it that applying the more current criteria to past autism studies results in approximately the same rate?
This is not to say that it is impossible that there could be some environmental factor that causes an increase in autism rates, but there is certainly no causal link established or well understood; we're not even certain that there is actually a statistically significant increase in autism rates.
Having been through both systems and having someone close to me who practices what you would call nonsensical, most come from a "traditional scientific" background. they spend four-six years with their heads buried in biology textbooks. they're understanding of the human body as such, and as healers isn't very distant from what mainstream medicine understands. the critical approach stems from not merely viewing a particular problem as merely a symptom, which is what mainstream medicine is taught to do. they isolate and objectify. the patient in this system is inherently passive. naturopaths take a more holistic approach to their practice. they have some sort of responsibility for trying to change the patterns that lead to a lot of ailments. i know many naturopaths who know when to send someone to a "normal" doctor, and who know when tweeking a diet is all that's required. there's no need to be exclusive. it's about people getting better, not protecting some sort of sacred order or panoptic thinking.
let's not forget that mainstream science and their methods were considered nonsensical at a time. gentleman academics in the european aristocracy fought politically to get their science legitimated by having it practiced in the university. and much of their knowledge, especially modern medicinal knowledge is owed to the "traditional" knowledges of indigenous peoples the world over.