- Email: [email protected]
ARE PHILOSOPHERS JUST SCIENTISTS WITHOUT DATA?
ARE PHILOSOPHERS JUST SCIENTISTS WITHOUT DATA? JOSEPH H. DONAHUE, D.C.
Recently, while d iscussing the importance of philosophy and philosophers to the chiropractic profession, a prominent person in chiropractic circles said to me that "philosophers are just scientists without data." I was initially taken aback but upon reflection I understood his position. He meant, of course, that people, especially in chiropractic, "philosophize" because they lack hard data. He also had ample other reasons to be doubtful of the value of chiropractic philosophers. He was in a position to see how so-called chiropractic philosophers had done the most to cripple the progress of the profession. He has experienced firsthand the "philosophers" stock in trade. He , like many of us, has sadly listened to their "philosophy" which usually consists of outrageous claims of miracle cures, medical horror stories and a mishmash of religious and scientific ideas 0-6). He has heard them selling many ignorant chiropractors on the notion that philosophy is somehow related to practice building and moti vation. He has endured the ir berating of the rational (i.e., educated) mind while the y shamelessly steal its fruits from the scientific world (7). Who wouldn't doubt the value of philosophers after witnessing events in the chiropractic profession? The problem is more general than just the chiropractic profession, however. After all, the "philosophers" many professionals encounter in their undergraduate studies are often sterile academics with little practical knowledge such as scientists seem to possess. College courses in philosophy too often became a necessary evil to be taken to complete graduation requirements. Furthermore, while even most laymen can recall the names of several contemporary scientists, few people could name even one modern philosopher. The reasons for this are many. Part of the problem stems from social and cultural forces that ha ve glamorized the role of the scientist. For example, the media's depiction of the space program or new medical technologies all shape our perceptions of the importance of scientists. The image scientists evoke in the public's mind is that of an unemotional, totally objective thinker. He is a professional that has practical importance in our daily lives by creating new consumer products. Contrast this
image with that of the typical philosopher. He is more likely seen as a hair-splitting, subjective oddball, who has nothing "practical" to offer. At a more abstract level, scientists are envisioned as professionals collectively engaged in unlocking nature's secrets. What the average person vaguely conceptualizes, at this level, is the various types of physical scientists (especially physicists). Physicists are the "stars" of science churning out data, producing an ever clearer picture of the world. This flawed picture of science and scientists, as engaging in some totally objective undertaking, is largely why so many people casually dismiss philosophers as unimportant. Unfortunately, things are not so simple that a scientist can objectively pursue the "facts." Contrary to popular belief, philosophical contemplation is needed because science is not a neutral and entirely objective process (8-10). In reality, every science is awash in a priori assumptions about how the world "really" is. As Jamison notes about science, "its outcomes are but 'tru ths' relative to the investigator's perspective (1)." This point is doubly true in the clinical health sciences. Thus, there is no totally objective process by which we can pursue the "truth" about health and disease. A wise medical physician, F.G. Crookshank, observed many years ago that medicine has been led to "suppose that, if we only continue to go on observing and experimenting hard enough, and long enough, Truths, Laws and Eternal Verities will still continue to 'emerge' from the prison-house to which 'Aristotle' and 'Scholastics' are supposed to have assigned them (2)." In other words, Crookshank warns us that there are no facts "ou t there" which scientists, medical or otherwise, need only discover and thereby "build" a profession. All "facts" exist onl y within some a priori belief system, be it a belief system about legal, health or political matters. Therefore, philosophical understanding (and wisdom as opposed to scientific knowledge) begins with an examination of your belief system, particularly its metaphysical aspects. Philosophical contemplation is a continuous process that constantly re-evaluates the a priori belief system relative to the emerging scientific data (13). That's the ·21·
dance of life that should invigorate all professions. And that is precisely what is too often ignored in most professions today. That is why, for example, the art of medicine has given way to an over-dependence on technology. Patients are raw materials to be managed while their diseases are healed. Never mind the neglected metaphysical, epistemological and ethical considerations that profoundly impact on the clinical application of medical science to human beings. Modern physicians, star-struck with technology can easily forget about their bewildered and vulnerable patient. Today, an MRI report replaces the calm, reassuring hand and gentle counseling of the family doctor. Chiropractic is scarcely better. Collectively, we chiropractors have allowed "philosophers" and practice builders to sell us on the three-minute office call, manipulative "reports of findings," and the imparting of religious values (e.g., innate philosophy) to unsuspecting patients. These commonly accepted practices reflect just as poorly on our profession. Medical philosopher, H. Tristram Engelhardt, states that "an unexamined life may not be worth living, but unexamined health care professions are both dangerous and costly (14)." Chiropractic, although less dangerous and costly than medicine, can no longer ignore its responsibilities in these regards. What needs to be realized hat chiropractic colleges is that one studies philosophy because there continue to are certain types of graduate too many questions that need to be asked but for which there narrow-minded technicians, are no "data" possible. avaricious doctors There are many critical questions such as, "What who willingly chant is a chiropractor?" or "money, money, money' "How is chiropractic related to medicine?" at seminars, or Obviously, no scientist scientific illiterates could ever hope to answer such questions is testament through research. In fact, to the absence the answers to such questions should largely of authentic determine what a scienchiropractic philosophers. tist does. Consider that if a scientist cannot claim to know what a chiropractor is, how could he ever undertake "chiropractic" research? Philosophy, although a quiet and unassuming activity, is a crucial professional guide. This largely reflective activity proceeds by analyzing what we do
and why. Its analysis cannot, for instance, tell a researcher what projects to pursue, but it can tell her how it "ought" to be done. While philosophy cannot tell us how to run our practices, it can tell us what metaphysical assumptions it should be based upon. Admittedly, philosophy cannot tell us how many minutes we should spend with each patient, but it can tell us much about how the doctor-patient relationship should be structured. In short, philosophy involves some of the most fundamental concerns a profession has. Presently, our profession needs philosophers to clarify the a priori assumptive foundations of chiropractic science. These are the foundations upon which the practice of and research into chiropractic ultimately depends. These foundations must be articulated in terms of the metaphysical assumptions (e.g., disease is a process rather than a medical entity) we claim as the basis of the profession. Springing from this metaphysical basis, philosophical analysis can then provide insight into issues of more obvious concern to scientists. For example, should chiropractic concentrate on basic or clinical research? Certainly, whatever research balance is struck will have profound influences for the profession (15). These types of professional questions, and many more not even alluded to, need the attention of competent philosophical scholars. Somehow this profession must find and support philosophical scholars. Naturally, the first place we need these scholars is in our colleges. There they need adequate wages such that they can concentrate on teaching and doing philosophical research. If, as at present, they must have practices on the side to make a living wage, the profession will never keep or likely even attract competent people. A philosopher, like a researcher, must be abreast of the literature. Unlike a researcher, the philosopher's range of subjects is broader and in some areas his knowledge must be just as great. Aside from chiropractic, a good philosopher must keep abreast of the philosophical literature of other disciplines such as biology, medicine and science itself. He must integrate the insights developed in these disciplines into the chiropractic profession. Consider that no one person could, by himself, keep up with the developments in ethics alone and you can begin to see the immensity of the task. To continue to believe these immense intellectual tasks will somehow be done by our busy scientists, administrators or practitioners is to defy logic and to court professional disaster. Consider also that physical therapists are not hampered by any of the philosophical baggage (e.g., innate philosophy) that the chiropractic profession has. Being university based, they can rather easily overcome much of their shortcomings by adding to their education program. Their university affiliations makes them a prime
T
·22·
chiropractic colleges, our philosophers should be responsible for taking the raw student and helping turn him or her into a professional. They should take more responsibility for acculturating the student into the complexities of professional life. That is, the student's brush with philosophy should leave them more than mere technicians. Consider how the unprofessional behavior (e.g., shoddy and misleading advertising) of too many chiropractors leaves other professional groups with a negative image of the chiropractic profession. As George McAndrews, general counsel for the ACA, notes, the chiropractic profession needs to "de-ghettoize" itself (8). Consider philosophy's importance in light of this warning to medicine from Edmund Pellegrino, M.D., professor of true philosopher medicine and medical is one who humanities. He says, "philosophy shows you the beauty, of medicine is a necessary worthiness and promise enterprise with practical consequences. VVhatwe 01 chiropractic. think medicine is shapes No,philosophers are not what medicine does, how we structure the scientists without data, physician's role, and, they are something perhaps most of all, his ethicsO 9)." Certainly, lar more rare and valuable... today's chiropractic the spiritual leaders philosophers must concern themselves with 01 their prolession. equivalent questions. It's high time the profession took philosophy and philosophers seriously. It takes a special type of independent thinker to provide the insights into our beliefs, customs and practices. A philosopher must be able to create an objective vantage point away from the noise and accepted ideas of the day. He or she must not be emotionally swayed by the often intriguing ideas and new theories of charismatic leaders. Yet, a good philosopher is one whose insights can be so profound that it touches that which is best in all of us. A true philosopher is one who shows you the beauty, worthiness and promise of chiropractic. Such a person does not intentionally inflame emotions, but the emotions are touched nonetheless. Chiropractic philosophers should provide those things chiropractors have always strived for in their philosophy . . . inspiration, solidarity and acceptance on equal footing with all physicians. No, philosophers are not scientists without data, they are something far more rare and valuable ... the spiritual leaders of their profession.
threat to become the leaders in manipulative science and thus take over chiropractic's main therapy. That philosophical scholarship is not being pursued by our present philosophy/principles departments is all too obvious. A thorough search of the profession's philosophical literature (i.e., peer reviewed literature) reveals minimal publishing by instructors in those departments. Too often these departments are the reward for those who peddle the "party line. " Such "philosophers" frequently teach from questionable texts, propagate doubtful ideologies (e.g., mixerstraights) and vilify some of our best thinkers (e.g., Ph.D . researchers) while lauding some of our worst (e.g., seminar "philosophers"). Further, it is often the case that these classes are used to teach things, such as palpation, under the rubric of "chiropractic principles ." It is all too apparent that many instructors and administrators wouldn't know a "principle" from a prince. That chiropractic colleges continue to graduate too many narrow-minded technicians, avaricious doctors who willingly chant "money, money, money" at seminars, or scientific illiterates is testament to the absence of authentic chiropractic philosophers. That somehow enough individual chiropractors can overcome this educational process and support our creaky scientific superstructure is amazing. Unfortunately, this whole situation is so wasteful, unnecessary and professionally crippling. Our philosophers should be charged with giving our students the basic training that reinforces the learning of the rest of the curriculum. They should help mold him or her into a critical thinker capable of intellectual expansion and readjustment. After all, our doctors face a lifetime of an expanding scientific knowledge base, much of which will make their old knowledge obsolete. As Jamison notes, our teaching should emphasize "critical decision-making rather than content mastery (6)." Such philosophical training would also leave the graduate a better consumer of chiropractic seminars and publications. Our future doctors will also encounter and be forced to deal with many ethical and professional problems earlier chiropractors never dreamed of. Ethical issues, in particular, seem to have been largely ignored by our present "philosophers." Here it seems that a true philosopher would construct a "problembased" educational format (such as Jamison proposes for nutritional instruction), where students grapple with real life types of ethical issues (7). Ethical problems relative to patient education strategies, advertising, interprofessional relations and the makeup of the typical office visit are just a few of the questions that such an approach could consider. In this area alone, competent philosophers can make an enormous professional contribution. Chiropractic philosophers should be instilling a sense of professionalism in our graduates. In
A
·23·
REFERENCES 1. Coulter ID. The chiropractic wars or the enemy within. Am J Chiropractic Med 1989;2:64-6. 2. Donahue JH. A proposal for the development of a contemporary philosophy of chiropractic. Am J Chiropractic Med 1989;2:51-3. 3. Hildebrandt RW. The science of chiropractic revisited. Am J Chiropractic Med 1990;3:55. 4. Keating JC, Sawyer CEo Which philosophy of chiropractic? J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1988; 11:325-8. 5. Keating JC Beyond the theosophy of chiropractic. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1989;12:147-50. 6. Leach RA. Chiropractic research: attitudes that hinder. Chiropractic Research 1988;1:14-17. 7. Donahue JH. Why the average chiropractor doesn't support research. Am J Chiropractic Med 1990; 3:111-13. 8. Charlton KH. The nature and environment of knowledge production, chiropractic theory and future progress. J Aust Chiropractor's Assoc1986;16:95-8. 9. Donahue JH. Philosophy of chiropractic: lessons from the past-guidance for the future. J Can Chiropractic Assoc (Accepted for publication Dec. 1990). 10. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific preparation for chiropractic clinical research. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1984;7:110. 11. Jamison JR. Educational preparation for chiropractic clinical research. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1984;7:110. 12. Crookshank FG. Introductory Essay. The History of Medicine. By CG. Cumston. New York: Dorset Press, 1987. xx 13. Donahue JH. Science, Metaphysics and a Chiropractic Health Perspective. Delivered at Palmer College of Chiropractic-West, Sunnyvale, CA. October, 1990. 14. Engelhardt HT. From philosophy and medicine to philosophy of medicine. J Med Philos 1986;11:5. 15. Coulter ID. The chiropractic paradigm. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1990;13:279-87. 16. Jamison J. Counteracting nutritional misinformation: a curricular proposal. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1990;13:456. 17. Jamison J. Nutritional Misinformation. pp 454-62. 18. McAndrews GP. Gaining a sense of reality when presenting credentials. ACA J of Chiropractic 1990;27:20. 19. Pellegrino ED. Philosophy of medicine: towards a definition. J Med Philos 1986;11:15. For additional information contact: Joseph H. Donahue, D.C 930-1/2 16th Street Peru, IL 61354 -24-
Recently, while d iscussing the importance of philosophy and philosophers to the chiropractic profession, a prominent person in chiropractic circles said to me that "philosophers are just scientists without data." I was initially taken aback but upon reflection I understood his position. He meant, of course, that people, especially in chiropractic, "philosophize" because they lack hard data. He also had ample other reasons to be doubtful of the value of chiropractic philosophers. He was in a position to see how so-called chiropractic philosophers had done the most to cripple the progress of the profession. He has experienced firsthand the "philosophers" stock in trade. He , like many of us, has sadly listened to their "philosophy" which usually consists of outrageous claims of miracle cures, medical horror stories and a mishmash of religious and scientific ideas 0-6). He has heard them selling many ignorant chiropractors on the notion that philosophy is somehow related to practice building and moti vation. He has endured the ir berating of the rational (i.e., educated) mind while the y shamelessly steal its fruits from the scientific world (7). Who wouldn't doubt the value of philosophers after witnessing events in the chiropractic profession? The problem is more general than just the chiropractic profession, however. After all, the "philosophers" many professionals encounter in their undergraduate studies are often sterile academics with little practical knowledge such as scientists seem to possess. College courses in philosophy too often became a necessary evil to be taken to complete graduation requirements. Furthermore, while even most laymen can recall the names of several contemporary scientists, few people could name even one modern philosopher. The reasons for this are many. Part of the problem stems from social and cultural forces that ha ve glamorized the role of the scientist. For example, the media's depiction of the space program or new medical technologies all shape our perceptions of the importance of scientists. The image scientists evoke in the public's mind is that of an unemotional, totally objective thinker. He is a professional that has practical importance in our daily lives by creating new consumer products. Contrast this
image with that of the typical philosopher. He is more likely seen as a hair-splitting, subjective oddball, who has nothing "practical" to offer. At a more abstract level, scientists are envisioned as professionals collectively engaged in unlocking nature's secrets. What the average person vaguely conceptualizes, at this level, is the various types of physical scientists (especially physicists). Physicists are the "stars" of science churning out data, producing an ever clearer picture of the world. This flawed picture of science and scientists, as engaging in some totally objective undertaking, is largely why so many people casually dismiss philosophers as unimportant. Unfortunately, things are not so simple that a scientist can objectively pursue the "facts." Contrary to popular belief, philosophical contemplation is needed because science is not a neutral and entirely objective process (8-10). In reality, every science is awash in a priori assumptions about how the world "really" is. As Jamison notes about science, "its outcomes are but 'tru ths' relative to the investigator's perspective (1)." This point is doubly true in the clinical health sciences. Thus, there is no totally objective process by which we can pursue the "truth" about health and disease. A wise medical physician, F.G. Crookshank, observed many years ago that medicine has been led to "suppose that, if we only continue to go on observing and experimenting hard enough, and long enough, Truths, Laws and Eternal Verities will still continue to 'emerge' from the prison-house to which 'Aristotle' and 'Scholastics' are supposed to have assigned them (2)." In other words, Crookshank warns us that there are no facts "ou t there" which scientists, medical or otherwise, need only discover and thereby "build" a profession. All "facts" exist onl y within some a priori belief system, be it a belief system about legal, health or political matters. Therefore, philosophical understanding (and wisdom as opposed to scientific knowledge) begins with an examination of your belief system, particularly its metaphysical aspects. Philosophical contemplation is a continuous process that constantly re-evaluates the a priori belief system relative to the emerging scientific data (13). That's the ·21·
dance of life that should invigorate all professions. And that is precisely what is too often ignored in most professions today. That is why, for example, the art of medicine has given way to an over-dependence on technology. Patients are raw materials to be managed while their diseases are healed. Never mind the neglected metaphysical, epistemological and ethical considerations that profoundly impact on the clinical application of medical science to human beings. Modern physicians, star-struck with technology can easily forget about their bewildered and vulnerable patient. Today, an MRI report replaces the calm, reassuring hand and gentle counseling of the family doctor. Chiropractic is scarcely better. Collectively, we chiropractors have allowed "philosophers" and practice builders to sell us on the three-minute office call, manipulative "reports of findings," and the imparting of religious values (e.g., innate philosophy) to unsuspecting patients. These commonly accepted practices reflect just as poorly on our profession. Medical philosopher, H. Tristram Engelhardt, states that "an unexamined life may not be worth living, but unexamined health care professions are both dangerous and costly (14)." Chiropractic, although less dangerous and costly than medicine, can no longer ignore its responsibilities in these regards. What needs to be realized hat chiropractic colleges is that one studies philosophy because there continue to are certain types of graduate too many questions that need to be asked but for which there narrow-minded technicians, are no "data" possible. avaricious doctors There are many critical questions such as, "What who willingly chant is a chiropractor?" or "money, money, money' "How is chiropractic related to medicine?" at seminars, or Obviously, no scientist scientific illiterates could ever hope to answer such questions is testament through research. In fact, to the absence the answers to such questions should largely of authentic determine what a scienchiropractic philosophers. tist does. Consider that if a scientist cannot claim to know what a chiropractor is, how could he ever undertake "chiropractic" research? Philosophy, although a quiet and unassuming activity, is a crucial professional guide. This largely reflective activity proceeds by analyzing what we do
and why. Its analysis cannot, for instance, tell a researcher what projects to pursue, but it can tell her how it "ought" to be done. While philosophy cannot tell us how to run our practices, it can tell us what metaphysical assumptions it should be based upon. Admittedly, philosophy cannot tell us how many minutes we should spend with each patient, but it can tell us much about how the doctor-patient relationship should be structured. In short, philosophy involves some of the most fundamental concerns a profession has. Presently, our profession needs philosophers to clarify the a priori assumptive foundations of chiropractic science. These are the foundations upon which the practice of and research into chiropractic ultimately depends. These foundations must be articulated in terms of the metaphysical assumptions (e.g., disease is a process rather than a medical entity) we claim as the basis of the profession. Springing from this metaphysical basis, philosophical analysis can then provide insight into issues of more obvious concern to scientists. For example, should chiropractic concentrate on basic or clinical research? Certainly, whatever research balance is struck will have profound influences for the profession (15). These types of professional questions, and many more not even alluded to, need the attention of competent philosophical scholars. Somehow this profession must find and support philosophical scholars. Naturally, the first place we need these scholars is in our colleges. There they need adequate wages such that they can concentrate on teaching and doing philosophical research. If, as at present, they must have practices on the side to make a living wage, the profession will never keep or likely even attract competent people. A philosopher, like a researcher, must be abreast of the literature. Unlike a researcher, the philosopher's range of subjects is broader and in some areas his knowledge must be just as great. Aside from chiropractic, a good philosopher must keep abreast of the philosophical literature of other disciplines such as biology, medicine and science itself. He must integrate the insights developed in these disciplines into the chiropractic profession. Consider that no one person could, by himself, keep up with the developments in ethics alone and you can begin to see the immensity of the task. To continue to believe these immense intellectual tasks will somehow be done by our busy scientists, administrators or practitioners is to defy logic and to court professional disaster. Consider also that physical therapists are not hampered by any of the philosophical baggage (e.g., innate philosophy) that the chiropractic profession has. Being university based, they can rather easily overcome much of their shortcomings by adding to their education program. Their university affiliations makes them a prime
T
·22·
chiropractic colleges, our philosophers should be responsible for taking the raw student and helping turn him or her into a professional. They should take more responsibility for acculturating the student into the complexities of professional life. That is, the student's brush with philosophy should leave them more than mere technicians. Consider how the unprofessional behavior (e.g., shoddy and misleading advertising) of too many chiropractors leaves other professional groups with a negative image of the chiropractic profession. As George McAndrews, general counsel for the ACA, notes, the chiropractic profession needs to "de-ghettoize" itself (8). Consider philosophy's importance in light of this warning to medicine from Edmund Pellegrino, M.D., professor of true philosopher medicine and medical is one who humanities. He says, "philosophy shows you the beauty, of medicine is a necessary worthiness and promise enterprise with practical consequences. VVhatwe 01 chiropractic. think medicine is shapes No,philosophers are not what medicine does, how we structure the scientists without data, physician's role, and, they are something perhaps most of all, his ethicsO 9)." Certainly, lar more rare and valuable... today's chiropractic the spiritual leaders philosophers must concern themselves with 01 their prolession. equivalent questions. It's high time the profession took philosophy and philosophers seriously. It takes a special type of independent thinker to provide the insights into our beliefs, customs and practices. A philosopher must be able to create an objective vantage point away from the noise and accepted ideas of the day. He or she must not be emotionally swayed by the often intriguing ideas and new theories of charismatic leaders. Yet, a good philosopher is one whose insights can be so profound that it touches that which is best in all of us. A true philosopher is one who shows you the beauty, worthiness and promise of chiropractic. Such a person does not intentionally inflame emotions, but the emotions are touched nonetheless. Chiropractic philosophers should provide those things chiropractors have always strived for in their philosophy . . . inspiration, solidarity and acceptance on equal footing with all physicians. No, philosophers are not scientists without data, they are something far more rare and valuable ... the spiritual leaders of their profession.
threat to become the leaders in manipulative science and thus take over chiropractic's main therapy. That philosophical scholarship is not being pursued by our present philosophy/principles departments is all too obvious. A thorough search of the profession's philosophical literature (i.e., peer reviewed literature) reveals minimal publishing by instructors in those departments. Too often these departments are the reward for those who peddle the "party line. " Such "philosophers" frequently teach from questionable texts, propagate doubtful ideologies (e.g., mixerstraights) and vilify some of our best thinkers (e.g., Ph.D . researchers) while lauding some of our worst (e.g., seminar "philosophers"). Further, it is often the case that these classes are used to teach things, such as palpation, under the rubric of "chiropractic principles ." It is all too apparent that many instructors and administrators wouldn't know a "principle" from a prince. That chiropractic colleges continue to graduate too many narrow-minded technicians, avaricious doctors who willingly chant "money, money, money" at seminars, or scientific illiterates is testament to the absence of authentic chiropractic philosophers. That somehow enough individual chiropractors can overcome this educational process and support our creaky scientific superstructure is amazing. Unfortunately, this whole situation is so wasteful, unnecessary and professionally crippling. Our philosophers should be charged with giving our students the basic training that reinforces the learning of the rest of the curriculum. They should help mold him or her into a critical thinker capable of intellectual expansion and readjustment. After all, our doctors face a lifetime of an expanding scientific knowledge base, much of which will make their old knowledge obsolete. As Jamison notes, our teaching should emphasize "critical decision-making rather than content mastery (6)." Such philosophical training would also leave the graduate a better consumer of chiropractic seminars and publications. Our future doctors will also encounter and be forced to deal with many ethical and professional problems earlier chiropractors never dreamed of. Ethical issues, in particular, seem to have been largely ignored by our present "philosophers." Here it seems that a true philosopher would construct a "problembased" educational format (such as Jamison proposes for nutritional instruction), where students grapple with real life types of ethical issues (7). Ethical problems relative to patient education strategies, advertising, interprofessional relations and the makeup of the typical office visit are just a few of the questions that such an approach could consider. In this area alone, competent philosophers can make an enormous professional contribution. Chiropractic philosophers should be instilling a sense of professionalism in our graduates. In
A
·23·
REFERENCES 1. Coulter ID. The chiropractic wars or the enemy within. Am J Chiropractic Med 1989;2:64-6. 2. Donahue JH. A proposal for the development of a contemporary philosophy of chiropractic. Am J Chiropractic Med 1989;2:51-3. 3. Hildebrandt RW. The science of chiropractic revisited. Am J Chiropractic Med 1990;3:55. 4. Keating JC, Sawyer CEo Which philosophy of chiropractic? J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1988; 11:325-8. 5. Keating JC Beyond the theosophy of chiropractic. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1989;12:147-50. 6. Leach RA. Chiropractic research: attitudes that hinder. Chiropractic Research 1988;1:14-17. 7. Donahue JH. Why the average chiropractor doesn't support research. Am J Chiropractic Med 1990; 3:111-13. 8. Charlton KH. The nature and environment of knowledge production, chiropractic theory and future progress. J Aust Chiropractor's Assoc1986;16:95-8. 9. Donahue JH. Philosophy of chiropractic: lessons from the past-guidance for the future. J Can Chiropractic Assoc (Accepted for publication Dec. 1990). 10. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific preparation for chiropractic clinical research. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1984;7:110. 11. Jamison JR. Educational preparation for chiropractic clinical research. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1984;7:110. 12. Crookshank FG. Introductory Essay. The History of Medicine. By CG. Cumston. New York: Dorset Press, 1987. xx 13. Donahue JH. Science, Metaphysics and a Chiropractic Health Perspective. Delivered at Palmer College of Chiropractic-West, Sunnyvale, CA. October, 1990. 14. Engelhardt HT. From philosophy and medicine to philosophy of medicine. J Med Philos 1986;11:5. 15. Coulter ID. The chiropractic paradigm. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1990;13:279-87. 16. Jamison J. Counteracting nutritional misinformation: a curricular proposal. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1990;13:456. 17. Jamison J. Nutritional Misinformation. pp 454-62. 18. McAndrews GP. Gaining a sense of reality when presenting credentials. ACA J of Chiropractic 1990;27:20. 19. Pellegrino ED. Philosophy of medicine: towards a definition. J Med Philos 1986;11:15. For additional information contact: Joseph H. Donahue, D.C 930-1/2 16th Street Peru, IL 61354 -24-