I got a notification my blog had been pinged by a Naturopathy blog. I decided to leave a comment because the person wasn’t using the term “premise” correctly (and because all the claims made on the blog were unproven, superstitious nonsense with no foundation in reality or science. My comment will no doubt be lost in moderation, so I’m putting it here for posterity:
You write “The third Naturopathic premise is ‘to diagnose and treat the cause.'” You’re using the term “premise” wrong. Premises are arguments that lead logically to a conclusion. “To diagnose and treat a cause” isn’t an argument; it’s not even a complete sentence.
Premise one: Reliable treatments for illnesses are those that are backed up by science.
Premise two: Naturopathy is not backed up by science.
Conclusion: Naturopathy is not reliable treatment for illnesses.
Because the premises logically lead to the conclusion, the argument is valid.
That being said, a valid logical argument may not be sound. An unsound argument is one whose premises are false. For example:
Premise one: Diseases are caused by “toxins” and are cured by “cleanses.”(This is a false premise; there is zero scientific evidence to back it up).
Premise two: Naturopathy removes toxins. (Also false. “Toxins” are vaguely defined and there is no evidence Naturopathy “cleanses” anything).
Conclusion: Naturopathy cures disease.
Logically valid, but complete bullshit.
I don’t think it was too harsh considering that Naturopaths milk desperate people for money while they die of terminal illnesses, but just in case, I read it again and kept it civil (for the most part).