- Email: [email protected]
THE TROUBLE WITH INNATE INTELLIGENCE AND THE TROUBLE THAT CAUSES: In Reply
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
TO THE EDITOR THE TROUBLE WITH INNATE INTELLIGENCE AND THE TROUBLE THAT CAUSES To the Editor: In Dr. Joseph Donahue’s article “The Trouble with Innate Intelligence and the Trouble That Causes(1) he attempts to provide “evidence” against two fundamental principles of chiropractic.
74
First, I would like to address his statement that “Innate Intelligence (11) is not a reality.” While he may disagree with Drs. D.D. and B.J. Palmer’s premise that I1 is a reality, we must realize that there is an internal dynamic that causes the body to function. We can differ in what we call this inborn mechanism (innate, life force, nature) however, few would deny that there is SOMETHING that causes the body to strive towards homeostasis. As I see it, I1 is a simple, non-offensive term to point out that the body does have inborn capabilities far beyond our understanding, and seems to be a concept that is easily understood by both the evolutionist and the religious without getting into an esoteric dissertation about life and death. In another statement Dr. Donahue writes that “the nerve system is nowhere near as pervasive as chiropractors claim.” I would like to remind Dr. Donahue that it is not only the “innatist” chiropractor who recognized the pervasiveness of the nerve system, but it is also recognized as such by the scientific community. Dr. Guyton, author of the Textbook of Medical Physiology (1991), states that “the nerve system is unique in the vast complexity of the control actions that it performs. It receives literally millions of bits of information from the different sensory organs and integrates all these to
determine the responses to be made by the body.” He further states, “the most important ultimate role of the nerve system is to control the various bodily activities. This is achieved by controlling (1) the constriction of the skeletal muscles throughout the body, (2) contriction of smooth muscles in the internal organs, and (3) secretions of both exocrine and endocrine glands in many parts of the body.”
REFERENCES 1. Donahue J. The Trouble with Innate Intelligence and the trouble that causes. PCCP I1 - 1992;1(1):21-5.
In Reply: I appreciate & Tiscareno’s letter and hope I can Clara&+thepoints he has raised.
Tiscareno’s belief that “thereis something that causes the body to strive towards homeostasis” is correct gyou Dr. Peter Williams, Roger Warwick, Mary do not Tea&+ that “something.”UnforDyson, Lawrence Bannister, co-authors tunately, he repeats the mistake of of Grays Anatomy (1989) state “that countless other chiropractors in elevating homeostatic responses are INNATE in all afaculty of organisms (i.e., striving living organisms; but with increasing size towards homeostasis) into an entity and complexity of structure, the range (i.e., l f eforce, innate). ?%is rejkation and flexibility of response has steadily is clearly a logicalfallacy (I). As I said increased in parallel with evolution of a in my article, the burden ofproof is on nervous system.” anyone that proposes such an entity. r f They also write that “the human nerve Tiscareno has any evidence he neglects system is the most complex, widely it andjust repeats the same old, unsupinvestigated, and yet poorly understood ported opinions that have been around physical system known to mankind. Its since D.D. Palmer instituted this structure and activities are inseparable fallacy. from every aspect of life; physical, culturTiscarenofeels only a @w” would al, and intellectual.” deny this ‘komething.”rfscienceis any When I read these statements I’m deeply measure, the only scientftcaly based appreciative of D.D.’s and B.J.’s wisdom professionalgroup that continues to and foresight to include the neurological accept the Innatellifeforcefallacy is component into the subluxation comchiropractors, For example, biohgkts, plex, for it is this factor that makes us as a p u p , don’t believe in thls sort of unique to the physical therapist, thing. They gave up “vitalism’’ at the osteopaths, bonesetters, and the turn ofthe century(2). masseur. It seems to me that as long as Strangely, TiscarenoJnds my argzlments our profession continues to base the ‘ksoteric’;yet, what is more esoteric tenets of the subluxation upon abnormal than Innate? Innatefitsperfedly the dicneurophysiology,we can confidently suptionary definition of esoteric as “of reliport our position with sound scientific gious, mystical orphilosophical teaching (anatomical, neurological, physiological) orpractice with a meaning that is evidence and facts. understood only by those who have Louis H. Tiscareno,Jr., D.C. 2352 Buchanan Road Antioch, CA 94509
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
received the necessary instruction or training”@).I f Tiscareno can refite my argument Eet him. Ifhe has somep m f of the existence of an Innate Intel&me let us see it. His observation that I . is %on-offensive”to the “evolutionistand the religious”isfoolish. As Ipointed out in my article, it offends certain religious groups (e.g., ChristianChiropractors Association) hec~methey understand “Innate”and the implicationsit hasfor their religious views. Trying topass off a revisionist version oflnnate, as Tiscareno appears tofavor; doesn’t alter thefacts of the religious connotations behind it. As Fuller has noted, Innate is aform of “unchurchedreligion” thatflows out ofl9th century ideas generated by mesmerism, spiritualism and Theosophy. The influence on Palmer’sInnateporn Eastern notions of religion is unmistakable(4). I have had patients that have been offided by previous chiropractorspushing “Innatereligion” on them. In one case this even involved a chiropractorpraying over them and in another case, a chiropractor suggested they pray together: Certainly, Innate offends not only me but also other knowledgeable chiropractic writers (e.g., see article rflerences). Moreover; as Ipointed out, Innate offends the sensibilitiesof chiropractic’s critics and gives them ammunition; and, as noted, no SeFrespecting biologist wouldgive it any credence. So while Innate doesn’t offend Tiscareno, it does many others. Tiscareno’s exception to my remarks about the ‘pervasivenessof the nervous system )’is largely unnecessary.I have read Guyton and Gray too. I did not say that the nervous system was notpervasive but rather that it was not aspervasive as many chiropractors claim. What
I was referring to was the common chi-
ropractic statements and teachingsthat strongly imply (and open claim) that evey cell ofthe body is directly controlled by the nervous system. This belief is embodied in the “safetypin cycle. ’’ I note that Tiscareno hasplaced Innate in capitals and boldprint in his quote
porn “Grays.”Certainly, he cannot
mean to imply that Gray is using innate in the same sense as chiropractors do.
while I have no objection to Tiscareno’s appreciation of the Palmers’ inclusion ofthe “neurologicalcomponent”of the subluxation, I wonder what it has to do with my article? I certainly did not take a position as to whether it is a component of the vertebral subluxation. I only pointed out tha4 based on my evidence, Innatists have to decide whether to keep the “neurologicalcomponent’’ or Innate. Remember; the Innatist subluxation model contends it is significant because subluxation interferes with Innate’s control; and, the nervous system supposedly carries Innate’s commands. Since my evidence shows this model to be impossible,the Innatists have to alter their model or be deemed illogical. WhileI take some objection to Tiscareno’s last statements about the sublaxation, it would require many more pages to deal with them. I would only remind him that there is not even a general consensus within the profession over what a chiropractic subluxation is. Moreovel; subluxation lacks a generally accepted operational dejnitionfor chiropractic scientists to work with, and an operational definition is the beginningpointfor scientific investigation. How this ill-dejned condition (i.e., subluxation) can be “conjdently supported”with “evidenceandfacts” is a puzzle. But, that is largely a scientific question which Tiscareno can take up
with chiropractic scientists in a scienti& journal. Joseph H. Donahue, D.C. 920 112 16th Street Peru, IL 61354
WErnCES
I . DonahueJH. Dis-Ease in ourprinci-
ples: the case against Innate Intelligence.Am J Chiro Med 1988;1:86-8. 2. Mayr Ernst. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, I988:l-6 3. Webster’s Dictionary. New York: Lexicon Publications, Inc., 1989322.
4. Fuller RC. The Turn to Alternative Medicine. Second Opinion.July 1992:10-31.
THE EVOLUTION OF PALMER’S METAPHORS AND HYPOTHESES To the Editor: The article presented by Joseph Keating, Ph.D. in your Summer 1992 edition of the Philosophical Constructs for the Chiropractic Profession(1) is an excellent discourse 011 the historical roots of our profession. I feel that the rational discussion on the metamorphosis of chiropractic in D.D.’s own thinking can shed a great deal of light on how chiropractic needs to change during our next century All developing arts and sciences have made transitions when new knowledge came to light. The “vapors and humors” theories of disease causation gave way when research and investigation were allowed. Ultimately, the reproducible “germ theory” of disease became accepted and replaced old ideas of disease. The idea of a flat earth gave way to present
75
TO THE EDITOR THE TROUBLE WITH INNATE INTELLIGENCE AND THE TROUBLE THAT CAUSES To the Editor: In Dr. Joseph Donahue’s article “The Trouble with Innate Intelligence and the Trouble That Causes(1) he attempts to provide “evidence” against two fundamental principles of chiropractic.
74
First, I would like to address his statement that “Innate Intelligence (11) is not a reality.” While he may disagree with Drs. D.D. and B.J. Palmer’s premise that I1 is a reality, we must realize that there is an internal dynamic that causes the body to function. We can differ in what we call this inborn mechanism (innate, life force, nature) however, few would deny that there is SOMETHING that causes the body to strive towards homeostasis. As I see it, I1 is a simple, non-offensive term to point out that the body does have inborn capabilities far beyond our understanding, and seems to be a concept that is easily understood by both the evolutionist and the religious without getting into an esoteric dissertation about life and death. In another statement Dr. Donahue writes that “the nerve system is nowhere near as pervasive as chiropractors claim.” I would like to remind Dr. Donahue that it is not only the “innatist” chiropractor who recognized the pervasiveness of the nerve system, but it is also recognized as such by the scientific community. Dr. Guyton, author of the Textbook of Medical Physiology (1991), states that “the nerve system is unique in the vast complexity of the control actions that it performs. It receives literally millions of bits of information from the different sensory organs and integrates all these to
determine the responses to be made by the body.” He further states, “the most important ultimate role of the nerve system is to control the various bodily activities. This is achieved by controlling (1) the constriction of the skeletal muscles throughout the body, (2) contriction of smooth muscles in the internal organs, and (3) secretions of both exocrine and endocrine glands in many parts of the body.”
REFERENCES 1. Donahue J. The Trouble with Innate Intelligence and the trouble that causes. PCCP I1 - 1992;1(1):21-5.
In Reply: I appreciate & Tiscareno’s letter and hope I can Clara&+thepoints he has raised.
Tiscareno’s belief that “thereis something that causes the body to strive towards homeostasis” is correct gyou Dr. Peter Williams, Roger Warwick, Mary do not Tea&+ that “something.”UnforDyson, Lawrence Bannister, co-authors tunately, he repeats the mistake of of Grays Anatomy (1989) state “that countless other chiropractors in elevating homeostatic responses are INNATE in all afaculty of organisms (i.e., striving living organisms; but with increasing size towards homeostasis) into an entity and complexity of structure, the range (i.e., l f eforce, innate). ?%is rejkation and flexibility of response has steadily is clearly a logicalfallacy (I). As I said increased in parallel with evolution of a in my article, the burden ofproof is on nervous system.” anyone that proposes such an entity. r f They also write that “the human nerve Tiscareno has any evidence he neglects system is the most complex, widely it andjust repeats the same old, unsupinvestigated, and yet poorly understood ported opinions that have been around physical system known to mankind. Its since D.D. Palmer instituted this structure and activities are inseparable fallacy. from every aspect of life; physical, culturTiscarenofeels only a @w” would al, and intellectual.” deny this ‘komething.”rfscienceis any When I read these statements I’m deeply measure, the only scientftcaly based appreciative of D.D.’s and B.J.’s wisdom professionalgroup that continues to and foresight to include the neurological accept the Innatellifeforcefallacy is component into the subluxation comchiropractors, For example, biohgkts, plex, for it is this factor that makes us as a p u p , don’t believe in thls sort of unique to the physical therapist, thing. They gave up “vitalism’’ at the osteopaths, bonesetters, and the turn ofthe century(2). masseur. It seems to me that as long as Strangely, TiscarenoJnds my argzlments our profession continues to base the ‘ksoteric’;yet, what is more esoteric tenets of the subluxation upon abnormal than Innate? Innatefitsperfedly the dicneurophysiology,we can confidently suptionary definition of esoteric as “of reliport our position with sound scientific gious, mystical orphilosophical teaching (anatomical, neurological, physiological) orpractice with a meaning that is evidence and facts. understood only by those who have Louis H. Tiscareno,Jr., D.C. 2352 Buchanan Road Antioch, CA 94509
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
received the necessary instruction or training”@).I f Tiscareno can refite my argument Eet him. Ifhe has somep m f of the existence of an Innate Intel&me let us see it. His observation that I . is %on-offensive”to the “evolutionistand the religious”isfoolish. As Ipointed out in my article, it offends certain religious groups (e.g., ChristianChiropractors Association) hec~methey understand “Innate”and the implicationsit hasfor their religious views. Trying topass off a revisionist version oflnnate, as Tiscareno appears tofavor; doesn’t alter thefacts of the religious connotations behind it. As Fuller has noted, Innate is aform of “unchurchedreligion” thatflows out ofl9th century ideas generated by mesmerism, spiritualism and Theosophy. The influence on Palmer’sInnateporn Eastern notions of religion is unmistakable(4). I have had patients that have been offided by previous chiropractorspushing “Innatereligion” on them. In one case this even involved a chiropractorpraying over them and in another case, a chiropractor suggested they pray together: Certainly, Innate offends not only me but also other knowledgeable chiropractic writers (e.g., see article rflerences). Moreover; as Ipointed out, Innate offends the sensibilitiesof chiropractic’s critics and gives them ammunition; and, as noted, no SeFrespecting biologist wouldgive it any credence. So while Innate doesn’t offend Tiscareno, it does many others. Tiscareno’s exception to my remarks about the ‘pervasivenessof the nervous system )’is largely unnecessary.I have read Guyton and Gray too. I did not say that the nervous system was notpervasive but rather that it was not aspervasive as many chiropractors claim. What
I was referring to was the common chi-
ropractic statements and teachingsthat strongly imply (and open claim) that evey cell ofthe body is directly controlled by the nervous system. This belief is embodied in the “safetypin cycle. ’’ I note that Tiscareno hasplaced Innate in capitals and boldprint in his quote
porn “Grays.”Certainly, he cannot
mean to imply that Gray is using innate in the same sense as chiropractors do.
while I have no objection to Tiscareno’s appreciation of the Palmers’ inclusion ofthe “neurologicalcomponent”of the subluxation, I wonder what it has to do with my article? I certainly did not take a position as to whether it is a component of the vertebral subluxation. I only pointed out tha4 based on my evidence, Innatists have to decide whether to keep the “neurologicalcomponent’’ or Innate. Remember; the Innatist subluxation model contends it is significant because subluxation interferes with Innate’s control; and, the nervous system supposedly carries Innate’s commands. Since my evidence shows this model to be impossible,the Innatists have to alter their model or be deemed illogical. WhileI take some objection to Tiscareno’s last statements about the sublaxation, it would require many more pages to deal with them. I would only remind him that there is not even a general consensus within the profession over what a chiropractic subluxation is. Moreovel; subluxation lacks a generally accepted operational dejnitionfor chiropractic scientists to work with, and an operational definition is the beginningpointfor scientific investigation. How this ill-dejned condition (i.e., subluxation) can be “conjdently supported”with “evidenceandfacts” is a puzzle. But, that is largely a scientific question which Tiscareno can take up
with chiropractic scientists in a scienti& journal. Joseph H. Donahue, D.C. 920 112 16th Street Peru, IL 61354
WErnCES
I . DonahueJH. Dis-Ease in ourprinci-
ples: the case against Innate Intelligence.Am J Chiro Med 1988;1:86-8. 2. Mayr Ernst. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, I988:l-6 3. Webster’s Dictionary. New York: Lexicon Publications, Inc., 1989322.
4. Fuller RC. The Turn to Alternative Medicine. Second Opinion.July 1992:10-31.
THE EVOLUTION OF PALMER’S METAPHORS AND HYPOTHESES To the Editor: The article presented by Joseph Keating, Ph.D. in your Summer 1992 edition of the Philosophical Constructs for the Chiropractic Profession(1) is an excellent discourse 011 the historical roots of our profession. I feel that the rational discussion on the metamorphosis of chiropractic in D.D.’s own thinking can shed a great deal of light on how chiropractic needs to change during our next century All developing arts and sciences have made transitions when new knowledge came to light. The “vapors and humors” theories of disease causation gave way when research and investigation were allowed. Ultimately, the reproducible “germ theory” of disease became accepted and replaced old ideas of disease. The idea of a flat earth gave way to present
75