Why is it that chiropractic philosophers do not seem to have a fear of the scientists but the scientists seem to have a fear of the philosophers, viewing us as some kind of threat to the public? We put our ideas, our assertions and deductions out there, and wait for science to disprove them. In fact, we welcome the scrutiny of science, to have our logic put into the cauldron of scientific experiment. The most obvious example of this is the historical change in our philosophy relative to the cause of disease. While philosophically chiropractic began as a “correction for the cause of disease,” it became clear, through scientific efforts, that there were many contributing factors or causes to all disease. Genetics, diet, mental attitude, the environment, and other factors clearly contribute to disease and to ignore or reject these as factors is not only an insult to science but a poor public-relations position. So our philosophy became one that recognized the vertebral subluxation as a factor in the loss of health, a factor which is a part of the cause of disease. Albeit, it is a very important factor and one that should be addressed. Studies have shown that even a slight change in causative factors of disease can enable the body to heal itself. An antibiotic that kills a few bacteria, a change in mental attitude, and slight changes in dietary habits can all enable the body to heal itself a little better, enough to make a significant difference.
Our chiropractic philosophy has changed, and more than keeps up with modern scientific findings. So why is it that the scientist seems to be antagonistic toward philosophy and unwilling to accept philosophy? I think that it relates to the very nature of science and philosophy. Philosophy functions from a base of morality. One of the most important moral imperatives is to seek truth. Science, on the other hand, exists to establish facts. It functions in a moral vacuum. Maybe that is all right, maybe not. We have seen throughout history and continue to see that science does not regard issues of morality. Whether it is the experiments of the Nazis or stem cell research, issues of right and wrong are not important to the scientist.
So why the fear of the philosopher? Perhaps, in part, it is because they do not understand that the philosopher functions under a value system. It is the base of his thinking and actions. The scientist has no such system. He does not factor values or morality into his work. (Ironically, most scientists do it outside of their field of study, they just do not allow it to enter that area). He can separate any value system he might have from his work. Will we ever resolve this conflict? Not until and unless the scientist begins to adopt a philosophy, a value system and see his science in the light of that system.
Perhaps that will necessitate a change in the very nature of scientific inquiry. He might (heaven forbid) begin with certain metaphysical assumptions. If science can not or chooses not to do this, then it can never expect to come to a knowledge of the truth and as such can not be critical of the philosopher or his metaphysical assumptions.v20n4