I know nothing about naturopathy and homeopathy. TG said she rejected the latter. It would have been interesting, possibly, to see what she meant by that. She also mentioned "an unquestioning belief in conventional medical practices". It might have been interesting to see her take on that.
Maybe you guys are right to drive off potential quacks from the get go. If it is done respectfully, and even vigorously, with objective reasoned-backed statements and questions (as is generally done by the 2 Mac's) then fine.
I wonder, however, if in our zeal to dispense of dirty bathwater, we may, sometimes, be throwing out something of value.
There's always a remote possibility that anything rejected today has some aspect that might be shown to be true in the future. But we have to go by the information we have now to make today's choices. As of now there isn't one scintilla of evidence that Naturopathy or Homeopathy has any validity. We can't accept claims as true on the off chance they might be shown to have some validity in the future. The chances are incredibly remote. Let's say something does come along that is shown to be true that we reject today. What is lost? We can admit we were wrong using the tools we had to work with and move on. But accepting something as valid today that flies in the face of critical thinking now could be highly damaging to individuals and the environmemt. The vast majority of ideas that are rejected today via critical thinking and logic will never be shown to be valid tomorrow.
Lois