It is not that science is better than philosophy or vice versa. It is just that science gives us knowledge that further validates our philosophy from a different perspective and philosophy gives us knowledge, that at least at this moment in time, science is incapable of demonstrating. Every chiropractor practices on some patients based upon a philosophy which has never been validated scientifically. Every chiropractor has seen “results” in the office that can only be explained by the philosophy. Science has not proven it. All objective straight chiropractic has done is extrapolate what every chiropractor has seen happen on many patients who come in the office, to every patient who comes in the office. (The knowledge that the body works better without subluxation, perhaps, better in different degrees in different people, some noticeable, some not.) It is true, we have not scientifically demonstrated to what degree every person is better off without subluxation and so scientifically, we cannot justify giving chiropractic care to every man, woman and child on this planet. Here, however, is where the conflict of conscience arises between the chiropractor who would be scientific and the humanitarian part of each one of us, which is guided by a philosophy. While scientifically we cannot justify giving chiropractic care to everyone, philosophically we cannot justify not giving it to them.v12n2
