Recently I was listening to a non-chiropractic speaker discuss the above methods of coming to a knowledge of truth. He mentioned that faith, empiricism and reason are directly related to the degree of intellect an individual has or is willing to use. Faith or belief necessitates the least amount of intellect. A small child can exercise faith or belief. It is the first and primary method of learning in the early years. Faith depends upon the character or the quality of the object of that belief. The greater the character or integrity of the object of faith, the easier it is to believe. While it is the easiest method and requires the least amount of intellect and effort, it is also the most fragile. A belief system can be challenged and upset rather easily. Conversions are quite commonplace. Beliefs can change from day to day.
The second method, empiricism or what has become known as the scientific method, calls for a bit more intellect. It is based upon the powers of observation, the senses, if you will, which everyone has to some degree despite great variations. Unfortunately, the senses can be fooled. We often perceive something other than what was meant. Optical illusions are commonplace. New research often contradicts previous research and cannot provide irrefutable truth. All the factors that distort or fool the senses make empiricism unreliable. Science is now doing research to determine whether research is reliable, given all the factors that influence it, including the influence of the one doing the research! Someone recently asked how the “placebo effect” was proven reliable. Did they substitute a placebo for the placebo?
The last method, reason, is the most difficult method to master. Oddly enough, those who use this method, at least with regard to chiropractic, are made to feel that they are intellectually inferior when, in fact, it takes more intelligence and intellectual acumen to use reason than empiricism or faith. While this method is the most difficult to master, people who use reasoning very rarely “change their mind.” They may not act according to reason but that is not a failure of the reasoning. It is a flaw in the character of the individual. For example, those who see the logic of the objective straight chiropractic approach will rarely change to a different practice approach. If they do, it is not because they have reasoned differently. It is usually for economic reasons. They realize mixing is not rational or reasonable from a straight chiropractic perspective but they want to make more money (or work less).
Critics of our deductive reasoning approach will mistakenly claim that what we hold to is a belief system. They do this in an effort to relegate our system to one inferior to their own (faith vs. empiricism). We must not be fooled or made to think we are somehow inferior because we have not “scientifically proven” chiropractic. We have done better than that. We have demonstrated it is true by the best method–reason. It is true that there is a certain amount of belief associated with our method. It is however, much less than that required by the empirical method. We must “believe” that “there is a universal intelligence in all matter giving to it all its properties and actions thus maintaining it in existence.” Even that premise is not based solely on faith but on inductive reasoning which is part of the scientific method. The empiricist, on the other hand, must believe that the methodology was correct, the scientists were honest, all the thousands of variables were removed, his observations were correct, and the procedures were done correctly, just to name a few. Empiricism is clearly an inferior method of determining truth. That is why much of today’s scientific research will be obsolete or refuted tomorrow. Further, what has been empirically proven for the human body is not a principle or law. It works for some and not for others. The human body itself is a variable. We are all different and that variable cannot be removed.
From a practical position there are two final points which must be considered. First, when in debate with an empiricist who wants proof, we just have to say we do not function in that paradigm. Sorry, it is not our model. But if they would like to come into our model then we can debate. First, they must refute our Major Premise or show where our reasoning is wrong. They must show us how our reasoning, that the body has an inborn ability to run itself, is illogical. They must show us how the idea that the nerve system is a significant tool of this self-controlling mechanism is unreasonable. Since it is understood that structure affects function, they must explain why the concept that a change in the structure of the spine will affect the nerve system, is not a logical deduction. If they want to operate in our model they can try to show us by logic where we are incorrect but they cannot expect us to try to fit our model to their game.
The second point which must be considered relates to the first. We must realize that those who function in an empirical model may be “reasoning challenged.” They just do not comprehend our approach. Like the character in the movie Rain Man, they may have great abilities in one area (they may have good eyes, ears and a strong belief system), but they lack the ability to look at life using a reasonable, rational, deductive approach. Be kind to them, they just may not have the ability to understand the big idea and sadly, maybe they never will.v15n4