Post by KenNiemann on Apr 2, 2005 2:21:34 GMT -5
Philosophy - Research Programs & Clinical Experience
by David Prescott,MA,JD,DC,FIAMA and Hon. Edwin Grauke,JD,DC
www.chiroweb.com/archives/20/20/16.html
We suggest that the nerve/subluxation concept is not large or accurate enough, or sufficiently abstract to serve as the hard core of the Palmerian paradigm; it is too easily subject to falsification. As shown in our prior articles, the body's recuperative power is controlled, in part, by the nervous system functioning together with, and as part of, the whole extracellular matrix. Of course, one could look upon the "subluxation" as a metaphor for the idea that the body's regulatory capacity can become slightly dysfunctional, resulting in organic disease.
Kant and 19th-Century Biology Self-Organization/Self-Regulation3
Let's review the work of Imre Lakotas.7 We state his most fundamental premise: "First, I claim that the typical descriptive unit of great scientific achievements is not an isolated hypothesis, but rather a research program."4 Lakotas extended his premise to include the importance of a research tradition. We will look very briefly at the research tradition stemming, in significant part, from Immanuel Kant's writing at the close of the 18th century. We suggest that D.D.'s school of chiropractic thought is either derived in part from that tradition, or otherwise falls comfortably within it. ....
In this article, the authors strongly urge us to consider using Kantian philosophy to ground chiropractic philosophy. This is so ill advised in my view.
Suppose you were holding an apple in your hand. Kant would tell you that you could never really know the apple as it actually exists, you can only know the apple as it appears to you. That is, there exits a knowledge boundary between our minds and the real world "out there".
But does the denial of our ability to know the real world
make for a good platform on which to build a healthcare industry? (I think I would be very concerned if a cardiologist denied the knowability of the real world.)
It might prove fruitful for one to go through Prescott's article and identify all the times HE makes knowledge claims about the real world. In fact, to even claim that a knowledge boundary exists is a claim to know something about the real world "out there".
Further, I'm not sure if the authors are aware that Kant held that teleology exists only in one's mind. The order of the natural world doesn't exist in the natural world, it exists in our heads.
Not a wise foundation for healthcare in my view.
And as previously mentioned, Joe Strauss, in his
Chiropractic Philosophy , states that our claims to know the real world should at least "be regarded with suspicion". Strauss argues that at one time science led us to believe in a flat earth....therefore our ability to observe is unreliable...same holds true, according to Strauss, with a stick in the water...the submerged part looks bent. But Strauss unwittingly demonstrates a point counter to what he argues. How does Strauss know that the world is not flat? How does he know that sticks only appear bent when partially submerged? It is precisely because of good science that Strauss now knows that sticks appear bent when they really are not...and these wonderful space shots of our planet demonstrate that the earth actually is round.
Science works at getting to the truth. It is laborious and many corrections need to made along the way. But the success of science is proof that we can know the real.
Finally, although I do agree with these authors that Darwinism is not true. It is as failed a theory as young earth creationism in my view.
However, I have not read one single explanation as to why these minor vertebral malpositions affect anything at all. Everyone postulating this position just assumes that as long as they can beat up on naturalism, it follows that subluxations cut off this vital energy. Suppose I did grant the mental impulse theory- so what??
by David Prescott,MA,JD,DC,FIAMA and Hon. Edwin Grauke,JD,DC
www.chiroweb.com/archives/20/20/16.html
We suggest that the nerve/subluxation concept is not large or accurate enough, or sufficiently abstract to serve as the hard core of the Palmerian paradigm; it is too easily subject to falsification. As shown in our prior articles, the body's recuperative power is controlled, in part, by the nervous system functioning together with, and as part of, the whole extracellular matrix. Of course, one could look upon the "subluxation" as a metaphor for the idea that the body's regulatory capacity can become slightly dysfunctional, resulting in organic disease.
Kant and 19th-Century Biology Self-Organization/Self-Regulation3
Let's review the work of Imre Lakotas.7 We state his most fundamental premise: "First, I claim that the typical descriptive unit of great scientific achievements is not an isolated hypothesis, but rather a research program."4 Lakotas extended his premise to include the importance of a research tradition. We will look very briefly at the research tradition stemming, in significant part, from Immanuel Kant's writing at the close of the 18th century. We suggest that D.D.'s school of chiropractic thought is either derived in part from that tradition, or otherwise falls comfortably within it. ....
In this article, the authors strongly urge us to consider using Kantian philosophy to ground chiropractic philosophy. This is so ill advised in my view.
Suppose you were holding an apple in your hand. Kant would tell you that you could never really know the apple as it actually exists, you can only know the apple as it appears to you. That is, there exits a knowledge boundary between our minds and the real world "out there".
But does the denial of our ability to know the real world
make for a good platform on which to build a healthcare industry? (I think I would be very concerned if a cardiologist denied the knowability of the real world.)
It might prove fruitful for one to go through Prescott's article and identify all the times HE makes knowledge claims about the real world. In fact, to even claim that a knowledge boundary exists is a claim to know something about the real world "out there".
Further, I'm not sure if the authors are aware that Kant held that teleology exists only in one's mind. The order of the natural world doesn't exist in the natural world, it exists in our heads.
Not a wise foundation for healthcare in my view.
And as previously mentioned, Joe Strauss, in his
Chiropractic Philosophy , states that our claims to know the real world should at least "be regarded with suspicion". Strauss argues that at one time science led us to believe in a flat earth....therefore our ability to observe is unreliable...same holds true, according to Strauss, with a stick in the water...the submerged part looks bent. But Strauss unwittingly demonstrates a point counter to what he argues. How does Strauss know that the world is not flat? How does he know that sticks only appear bent when partially submerged? It is precisely because of good science that Strauss now knows that sticks appear bent when they really are not...and these wonderful space shots of our planet demonstrate that the earth actually is round.
Science works at getting to the truth. It is laborious and many corrections need to made along the way. But the success of science is proof that we can know the real.
Finally, although I do agree with these authors that Darwinism is not true. It is as failed a theory as young earth creationism in my view.
However, I have not read one single explanation as to why these minor vertebral malpositions affect anything at all. Everyone postulating this position just assumes that as long as they can beat up on naturalism, it follows that subluxations cut off this vital energy. Suppose I did grant the mental impulse theory- so what??