Friday, April 30, 2010
Conflicts in Philosophy
Chiropractic maintains that we cannot know with any certainity those things that science in general and medicine in particular claim we can know (normal b.p., heartrate, etc.) . Conversely, we maintain that we can know with certainity those things that science claims we cannot know (absolutes, innate/universal intelligence, etc.).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Exactly,thus Science can never accept true Chiropractic. Any acceptence can only be achieved by altering true (straight) Chiropractic.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's because our Major Premise is our start-point. Everything else after that is deductive reasoning. Science in general and medicine are inductive.
ReplyDeleteFor that reason I agree with Joe D.
We arrive at our Major Premise using inductive reasoning, which can be useful. Medicine's and science's mistake is in using inductive reasoning almost exclusively.
ReplyDeleteAre OBSERVATION and AWARENESS inductive?
ReplyDelete"science can never accept true chiropractic". Good point Joe. That's because science will never accept the metaphysical as part of science. How did that come about? Who gave science the okay to ignore concepts like innate intelligence. The greater question is how can science come to a knowledge of truth if they are going to ignore "observation and awareness". I know we say that science is only meant to elicit facts, not come to a knowledge of truth but I think that lets them off the hook too easily. Good science does not ignore some of the facts. There are plenty of "facts" that science accepts without empirical information (eg. evolution). Perhaps we need to begin to challenge the arrogance of science.
ReplyDelete