Our profession is fraught with pseudoscientists. “Pseudo” because they really do not understand the role of science. Science is merely a tool that, if used correctly, can help one come to a knowledge of the truth. If used incorrectly it can really make a mess. If used in conjunction with the tool of philosophy, one has a greater chance of understanding truth, or at least the truth of the working of this universe, in general, and the human body, in particular. Philosophy is another tool that can be used to come to this knowledge of truth. Neither of them can be our sole tool. It would be like trying to build a house with only a saw and never a hammer.
Obviously, (or Unfortunately) science is limited by our perceptive abilities. Its purpose is to elicit facts that can be demonstrated empirically. That demonstration can only be inductive and can change from time to time. Every drug that has ever been taken off the market as being dangerous was at one time scientifically determined to be safe. Scientific “proof” can come to a wrong conclusion. If all the facts could be demonstrated empirically, then scientific conclusions could be regarded as truth. But all the facts are rarely known and those facts dealing with metaphysical constructs can never be known empirically. That is why certain drugs are eventually proven to do more harm than good, i.e., more facts emerge. Every person is different. The expression of their intelligence through the matter (what we in chiropractic call “life”) is different. But life is largely a metaphysical concept. It is not scientific. You cannot see it, measure it, and isolate it in a laboratory.
The true scientist understands this. He realizes the limitations of science and is content to allow it to do what it can. The arrogant, self-absorbed pseudoscientist who does not realize science’s limitations has no ability to perform true science. He ignores the hammer at his side and thinks he can build the house with only a saw. The few successes he has in cutting wood encourage him but he eventually comes to a dead end. When that happens he usually goes back, makes a metaphysical assumption and then goes on from there. He usually pretends that it is not a metaphysical assumption. Or more than likely, he begins with a metaphysical assumption (a philosophical premise) but he just does not acknowledge it as such or does not even realize it.
The pseudoscientist ridicules those who have a metaphysical assumption concerning the order and organization of the universe and the human body, especially those who give names to that assumption (universal and innate intelligence). Yet, whether he realizes it or not he begins with an assumption as well. Metaphysics is “the study of the nature or causes of things.” If you begin with the metaphysical assumption that order and organization in the universe and the body are based upon intelligent design and action, then your choices are either to enhance that action or remove interferences to it. If you are not as intelligent or more intelligent than this innate intelligence, then enhancing its action would be a poor choice (like getting out to push a 747 at 30,000 feet.) This leaves you with removing interference to its expression. On the other hand, if you reject the assumption of order and organization in the universe, then you must accept random chance as the reason for this universe and the evolution of the human organism. In this case even your finite educated intelligence is better than leaving it up to chance. Consequently, you may feel justified in intruding into the process. That’s the thinking behind medicine, therapies and other outside-in endeavors (including outside-in chiropractic). The bottom line is that either there is an organizing intelligence, in which case you allow it to run the body, or the body is a product of random chance, in which case your four-year education is better than chance.
So how does science fit into the equation? Well, science merely accumulates facts to support either position. Of course, the validity or veracity of science is always called into question. Are the results of the investigations really facts or has someone with a presupposition merely falsified data to make them appear as facts in order to support their position. Recently a chiropractor on the F.A.C.E. message board accused me of being a presuppositionist. I would suggest that everyone goes into any scientific endeavor with presuppositions. Everyone has a preconceived idea of the nature of the universe. Evolution is a prefect example of this process. The theory of evolution is not science. It is a metaphysical supposition (i.e., a theory) as to “the nature” and “cause” of the human organism. No one was there at the creation of the universe or at the appearance of the first living being. So no one has empirical knowledge. Some people have rejected the idea of a Creator for whatever reason so they came up with “scientific” facts to support their presupposition. As I said earlier, some of these “facts” can be untrue. The famous Piltdown Man Hoax is just one of the dishonest scientific findings that evolutionists have contrived. Some are not even true science, such as geological strata. Now there are true scientific facts that support evolution. But there are also true scientific facts that support creation. Depending on your metaphysical presupposition, some can be explained. In fact, all can be explained by the Creationists’ presupposition.
There are similar problems in the ADIO and outside-in philosophical conflict. The mechanist wants us to subject our metaphysical construct (innate intelligence) to scientific scrutiny, which simply cannot be done. At the same time, the mechanist contends that because his metaphysical construct (the absence of order and organization) involves no organizing factor, it is not subject to scientific scrutiny. You cannot analyze a void or nothingness. We can analyze light and find its component properties scientifically, but we cannot analyze darkness. It is not an entity. So the mechanist lets himself off the hook. He says, prove that innate intelligence exists, runs the body, heals the body and uses the nerve system and prove it scientifically, all the while knowing that it cannot be proved scientifically. We are close- mouthed because we know that you cannot prove a metaphysical construct scientifically. Our only recourse is to ask them to prove scientifically that it does not exist, which does not make much sense. So we have this conflict. If we are going to ascertain truth about this world and the human body we must give up the idea that science will reveal it. Science simply does not have the capability of demonstrating this truth. V18n3