The differences between conventional medicine and naturopathic medicine are not science-based but rather philosophical. Both agree upon what constitutes rational ways of knowing "good medicine" and "scientific rigor".  One of the main differences between the two is the philosophical understanding of the origins of illness. In conventional medicine illness is philosophically seen as an invader from the outside which must be vanquished or "cured".  Whether the invader is a bug or a tumor or a number on a lab sheet, the conventional doctor aims his intervention - usually a medicine - at the target.  In naturopathic medicine symptoms are seen as the body's attempt to accomodate pressures which drive it out of balance.  For example, naturopathic doctors discover the pressures that cause the body to raise its blood pressure or blood sugar and then to alleviate those pressures to restore the body's balance for healing.
     A second but perhaps equally important philosophical difference between conventional medicine and naturopathic medicine is the nature of the therapeutic intervention. In conventional medicine the intervention is seen as the curative factor: it doesn't matter who prescribes your penicillin so much as your getting it.  In naturopathic medicine the individual characteristics of the patient, the patient's situation, and the relationship between the patient and the naturopathic doctor must all be considered and, hopefully, all must be in harmony for the intervention to be successful.