There is a growing rift between the chiropractic philosophers (“the innatists” as one chiropractor calls us) and the chiropractic scientists (those that want to place chiropractic on the playing field of science). The argument, however, ends up being one-sided against the philosophers and it is not an argument in support of science, but rather against philosophy. It is not that the scientists want chiropractic to be scientific, it is that they do not want it to be philosophical. Can it not be both? Can we not hold to our philosophy while explaining the science of chiropractic? I have never heard a philosophical chiropractor express a fear of science. On the contrary, every scientific endeavor that has been legitimate science has reinforced the philosophical chiropractic tenet. The philosophers are not afraid of science. We do not try to outlaw it, to belittle it or to claim that it has no value. Why then is the same consideration not given to the philosophy? Why are we being attacked, often personally, and why is it one-sided? We are not inhibiting the march of “chiropractic science” by suggesting that chiropractic has a philosophy to it. The philosophy does not denigrate chiropractic in the eyes of the scientific community despite the fact that they think it does? We are not presenting chiropractic philosophy as an alternative to chiropractic science. Why then this attack?
I would suggest that it has nothing to do with science and philosophy. It has to do with power, with fear, and with the desire to suppress the free exchange of thought, as well as the fear that logical arguments and reason will become issues for discussion in the chiropractic profession. That has always been an issue. It is a power thing, with both sides struggling for control in the profession. The scientists have politically destroyed the straight chiropractic accrediting agency with its emphasis on chiropractic philosophy. They have closed two of the three straight schools. They ban straight philosophical chiropractic speakers from getting on college campuses. The battle is not over philosophy versus science. It is over freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and the freedom to practice safe, legal chiropractic and to serve humanity.
Straw Man Arguments
The other attack on straight chiropractic is that, “It is dangerous because they do not diagnose.” This straw-man attack has been going on for years. The scientists set up the false argument that philosophical chiropractors accept patients to cure all of the diseases and that they do not diagnose and refer out cases, hence they are a danger. They know that the philosophers do not claim to cure all diseases or any diseases. You are only a danger if you pretend to be able to cure any or all diseases without diagnosing them. Philosophical chiropractors do not do that and the scientists know that.
The above arguments have created a political and cultural war in chiropractic rather than an open discussion and exchange of ideas. The educational institutions, the profession, the scientific community and the public are the ultimate victims of this war. v14n3