ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS It appears that there is something of an inconsistency in the practical application of the chiropractic philosophy among many so-called straight chiropractors. We seem to espouse one thing but our actions bespeak something else. One of the prime concepts that we adhere to is the greatness of the human organism. We go to great lengths to extol the wonders of the human body and the innate intelligence which controls and coordinates its function. We constantly emphasize that the body has the ability to heal itself and to maintain itself in a state of health without outside help. We would have people believe that it is capable of doing just that if it did not have the greatest hindrance, the vertebral subluxation. By the very fact that we limit our attention to the vertebral subluxation we are saying "this is the greatest insult, perhaps the only insult to an otherwise perfectly functioning organism." Here's the inconsistency! We talk about how great the body is and then act like it does not have the capacity to withstand the physical, chemical and emotional traumas that "cause" vertebral subluxations. Let's go back and look at a chiropractic principle. The above traumas do not cause vertebral subluxations. The cause (singular) is an external invasive force overcoming the internal resistive forces. The above are not causes of a subluxation but of an external invasive force. If we are blaming subluxations on external invasive forces are we any better than the medical doctor who blames on external factors? The primary factor in the cause of vertebral subluxation has to be a lack of internal resistive forces rather than overwhelming external invasive forces. Granted a fall from a five story building will probably cause an external invasive force that will overcome the internal resistive forces of the body and cause a vertebral subluxation (it likely will cause more than subluxations) but many straight chiropractors appear to be addressing themselves to every day experiences as potential overwhelming external invasive forces not just out of the ordinary (five story falls). Perhaps some examples would help. You hear chiropractors talking about foods as an insult to the body "causing" vertebral subluxation. If this body is so great why can't we give it credit for the ability to be selective in what it assimilates. A McDonald hamburger is food: the innate intelligence of a properly functioning body has the ability to selectively take what is of value and get rid of the rest. If it doesn't accomplish that and instead results in a chemical insult to your body, perhaps it is because you are deficient in your complement of internal resistive forces rather than because a hamburger is an "overwhelming external invasive force." Remember, millions of subluxated people live on them! Concerning yourself with external invasive forces as a cause of vertebral subluxation is as much an "outside-in" approach as concerning yourself with eradication of germs. It is not chiropractic and, what's more, it does not make sense. Perhaps those of our number who are inordinately preoccupied with abstinence from junk food, candy bars, coffee, and alcohol, would also do well to look inside. Someone out there is sure to conclude that I'm advocating a steady diet of junk food, candy bars, coffee, and also getting drunk every night. What we advocate is innate living which is also called common sense. What we are talking about is less concern about outside factors and more concern with the lack of internal factor. If we are keeping ourselves and our patients clear, a full compliment of internal resistive forces are able to prevent subluxation "caused" by the above. The popular "cause" today is "stress." Stress causes subluxation, we are told. Baloney! The inability to handle stress causes subluxations. What causes the inability to handle stress? A body that is functioning in an incoordinated manner. What causes incoordination? Vertebral subluxation! We are told that we live in a stressful society. 20th century living has created stress. Yet 200 years ago our great great grandparents lived in a society where, if they went out hunting and got nothing, the family didn't eat that night. If the crops failed they couldn't go to the 711. They starved. The threat of Indian attack was constantly over their heads. We have the threat of "the bomb" and cancer. But they had the bubonic plague, epidemics, no miracle drugs, no welfare, no Medicare, no unemployment compensation. We live in a more complex society. There is no doubt about that, but that does not mean it is any more stressful. Stress is "mental." How can it be a stressful society when the average American spends almost as many , ( hours a week in a totally mindless activity (watching television) as he/she does working for a living (which is supposed to be the major cause of stress)? The point is, we don't live in any greater or less stressful society than did our ancestors and we need to stop using it as an excuse for vertebral subluxation. We have chiropractors, in the name of prevention of vertebral subluxation, recommending, advocating, or seeing the value in such measures as massage, relaxation therapy, flotation tanks, hypnosis, meditation, and who knows what else. We have other chiropractors advocating the above because they think the stress of life is greater than a subluxation free body can handle. A chiropractor who wouldn't think of suggesting that a germ makes you sick accepts without question that stress causes disease or dis-ease. Both are external causes. If we as chiropractors are going to address ourselves to stress, we had better practice every outside-in approach in order to be consistent. These are straight chiropractors. What they are saying is "normal daily life presents more external invasive forces than the human body is capable of withstanding despite getting regular adjustments and therefore you must direct your attention toward reducing or eliminating the causes of the external invasive forces." If that's the situation, then we might as well pack it in as straight chiropractors because we're only spinning our wheels. We might as well treat bad backs and stiff necks because we haven't a hope in the world of having an impact on the health of society. I for one don't believe that and neither do most straight chiropractors. This body is a fantastic thing. Given a good supply of internal resistive forces it has the ability to withstand every external invasive force associated with "average" 20th century living. If our patients don't appear able to do that or we ourselves don't, then let's look first internally before we start to address the "external." Are we making sure that we and our patients are free of subluxation and being kept free. If we are doing that then we don't have to worry about the outside-in factors.
EPISTEMOLOGICAL REHABILITATION
A good deal of the problem with the extreme differences within the chiropractic profession today is rooted in the thinking of the chiropractor. Obviously what you think the objective of the chiropractor should be will affect your practice. The straight has a "vertebral subluxation correction objective," the mixer has a "disease treatment objective." But perhaps it would benefit us to go back a step, for it seems some of the cause lies in how we think. How you think determines to a great degree what you think and as we stated above what you think (of the objective) of chiropractic will affect your practice. Epistemology according to Webster is "the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity." Very simply, epistemology deals with how we know what we know. The three basic ways in which we learn are faith, empiricism, and rationalization. Society seems to think that empiricism is the superior manner in which knowledge is gained. Yet the majority of knowledge we gain in life is by the other two methods. All methods are equally valid. As a child you are told "The stove is hot, do not touch it." You believe your mother's warning. "Belief" is the key word. The validity of this type of learning, faith, is dependent upon the object of faith. In this case, the object is your mother and her veracity. You may also use empiricism to determine whether it is hot. Empiricism is the scientific method and utilizes the senses. You can touch it! Good way to learn, a little painful, but effective. I don't recommend it in this case! The third method, rationalization, involves reason. You can reason that there is steam coming from the pot on the stove and that things like your soup when they come off the stove are hot, therefore, the stove must be hot. This method utilizes the ability to think, the quality of your mind. Each of these methods is valid. With each you will come to the correct conclusion.
Which is the better method? If you do not like pain, empiricism is not. Most of that which we learn is better suited to one method than another. In the above example probably faith was the superior method primarily because a young child has not developed the mind sufficiently to deductively reason the correct answer. We have a profession that was established primarily through the rationalization method of perception. We have begun with a Major Premise. "There is a universal intelligence in all matter..." From that point we have deductively drawn conclusions which are just as valid as if we demonstrated them in a laboratory. Ned Herman of the Whole Brain Corp. who teaches applied creativity talks about one mode of thinking, blacking out another, and as a result inhibiting potential creativity of an individual. We seem to have a similar situation here. One mode of thinking, empirical, inhibits the ability of an individual to think rationally. It must be proved via their senses to be fact. This type of individual has a difficult time understanding, accepting, or even giving a hearing to the deductive philosophy of chiropractic. The medical doctor is the perfect example of this. The only type of reasoning that he understands is inductive as a precursor to empirical proof. Many times I have heard a chiropractor explain reasonably and logically the simple truth of chiropractic in a radio debate. The M.D. invariably responds "Well, that sounds fine but can you prove it?" He not only cannot think outside the empirical frame of reference he does not even acknowledge that there is another legitimate way of thinking, that truth can be arrived at by means other than laboratory or clinical experiment. The truly successful people, those that we commonly refer to as geniuses, are the ones who can think equally well in each area. Edison was one of these. Although he was a scientist and functioned in the empirical realm, he used his deductive abilities and his faith in himself and his ideas to carry him through many a laboratory failure that would have caused the strictly empirical thinker to quit. Einstein was another in this category. He was as much a philosopher as a scientist. B.J. Palmer was a third. It amazes me how the empiricists or "clinical chiropractors" can mock B.J.'s philosophy and even the man as a cult figure. Yet this "scientific" group ignores the fact that B.J. alone did more scientific research, observed, evaluated and categorized more empirical data in chiropractic than the rest of the profession combined has done before or since. B.J. combined the ability to think in the empirical and rational areas with the ability to go with what has been variously described as intuition, gut feelings, right brain thinking, inner creativity. B.J. described it as "innate thought flashes." Whatever you call it, it is a characteristic of the geniuses in history. Perhaps this is what B.J. talks about in some of his writing when he says that everyone has the potential to be an Edison, Fermi, Bach, or Gershwin. It's a matter of properly utilizing what you've got. Much of our problem in chiropractic lies in the type of student that is attracted to chiropractic school. His or her pre-chiropractic education has almost entirely been in the empirical arena. He has learned his chemistry, physics and biology in an empirical lab. But more important than just learning these subjects he has learned a way of thinking empirical thinking. He has learned that it is the only accepted mode of thinking. It is strange how we reject the medical model but accept medical thinking. The medical model was arrived at by inductive reasoning coupled with empirical study. It results in conclusions, procedures, and data that are accepted as truth one day and will be rejected as false the next by the very same medical thinking. You cannot examine chiropractic by way of medical thinking. I am not saying we should reject programs and research to empirically prove chiropractic tenets but the fact remains that certain tenets cannot be demonstrated empirically. A perfect example occurred recently in a second quarter philosophy class. I spent considerable time deductively explaining a concept about innate intelligence. A student raised his hand and said "but you really can't prove this." I responded "I just did prove it!" Deductive reasoning is as valid a "proof" as is a laboratory experiment. When it comes to innate intelligence, deductive reasoning is the only valid proof. The problem with the student was he could not see a method outside of the empirical thought system as being a valid method of proving something. The student is not an unusual case. The majority of students think empirically. They even try to squeeze the chiropractic philosophy into an empirical frame of reference so that it becomes the "theory of chiropractic." There is a big difference between the philosophy of chiropractic and the theory of chiropractic. The philosophy is something that has been "proven" beyond a shadow of a doubt deductively. A theory is something that kind of hangs around until someone proves it, empirically.
We must begin to stop thinking of ourselves as second class citizens or second rate health practitioners because we think deductively. Many of our profession go around with a hang-dog expression saying "I'm sorry we can't prove our philosophy but we're working on it. One day we'll be able to. Meanwhile let's look, act, and pretend to be the epitome of empiricism, the medical doctor, and hope that nobody challenges us until we can prove chiropractic empirically." We should not go to the other extreme and become as arrogant (because of our ability to think philosophically) as the empirical chiropractor does because of his ability to function in the "scientific" framework. That is non-productive. But that is highly unlikely. The philosopher deals in principles and abstract concepts; these tend to promote humility. The more the chiropractor understands the philosophy of chiropractic, the greater his/her respect for the innate intelligence and the less his feelings of self-importance. The empiricist, on the other hand, thinks inductively. Inductive thinking deals with theories and experimentation. That glorifies the individual, hence the arrogance. If we could begin to turn around the thinking of this profession or at least get the profession to begin to think, we could make great changes in the attitudes and understanding of chiropractic.
WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO
We don't mix because we choose not to mix. It is not because we are too stupid to diagnose or too lazy to perform certain procedures. It is not because we cannot afford modalities or because some therapeutic procedures are esthetically distasteful to us. It is not because we blindly follow an ideology or worship at the feet of a cult figure. It is definitely not because we have never given any thought to the value of non-chiropractic procedures. We practice straight, unmixed chiropractic because we have concluded what is the sum total of the practice of chiropractic. We have not arbitrarily delineated it as such or accepted it as such because B.J. said it! No, we have thoroughly investigated, examined, and reasoned out our position. By sound, logical thinking we have concluded what our objectives are and have excluded everything outside the practice of chiropractic. We have rejected all else because an understanding of chiropractic rejects the thinking outside it and therefore precludes the incorporation of extra-chiropractic procedures.
