Peter Oberdorfer commented
2014-07-28 00:47:20 -0400
I agree with this segment, almost entirely, other than the example given that “when you throw out your back, you go to a chiropractor vs. a podiatrist”. As the son and grandson of biologists, I would take issue and exception with the characterization of Chiropractic as science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism
It is like holistic medicine, acupuncture, acupressure, ‘alternativel’ medicines, etc. It is often practiced alongside standard practices by MDs, but it’s not rooted in the scientific method, and hasn’t been peer reviewed. Chiropractic medicine, when pure, rejects the “germ theory”, which was firmly established scientifically more than 150 years ago.
If these alternative medical practices work for people, fine. However, they reject institutional medicine, which unlike alternative medicine, is bound by the scientific method despite all the issues it might have with delivery, big pharma, fairness, etc….
So, chiropractic medicine a bad example to use in the conversation, when trying to attack those who aren’t being rational and scientific.
Showing 1 reaction
It is like holistic medicine, acupuncture, acupressure, ‘alternativel’ medicines, etc. It is often practiced alongside standard practices by MDs, but it’s not rooted in the scientific method, and hasn’t been peer reviewed. Chiropractic medicine, when pure, rejects the “germ theory”, which was firmly established scientifically more than 150 years ago.
If these alternative medical practices work for people, fine. However, they reject institutional medicine, which unlike alternative medicine, is bound by the scientific method despite all the issues it might have with delivery, big pharma, fairness, etc….
So, chiropractic medicine a bad example to use in the conversation, when trying to attack those who aren’t being rational and scientific.