Science vs. Scientism: A Rebuttal

Science vs. Scientism

Nathan Cashion

Dr. Christopher Kent, chiropractor and subluxation activist, recently wrote an interesting post about Science vs. Scientism. His basic thesis was that Scientism is the habit of accepting scientific evidence as the only way to understand the world, excluding philosophy, aesthetics, etc. I don't disagree with this premise, but his conclusion - that anyone who fails to accept subluxation or innate intelligence as a valid construct must be adhering to Scientism, not science - seems to be a misconstrual of the scientific process.

[W]e cannot measure innate intelligence. Does this mean that it is not “real” and that we should abandon the concept merely because we have no technology to detect or quantitate it? I think not.

Straw man. Or red herring, I can't remember which.

Scientists do not suggest that we should abandon concepts merely because we don't yet have the technology for it, but rather that we should not blindly accept these hypotheses until we have evidence to support them. Kent mentions previously unproven concepts such as DNA and viruses, suggesting that we never would have benefited from understanding these ideas if it weren't for an open mind accepting ideas outside of what science can quantify. That isn't how science works, as I understand it. We would not have DNA technology if it weren't for the scientific process which has since substantiated it, not because of an acceptance of unproven hypotheses. DNA was accepted as the container of the code of life since Miescher first identified it in the 1860s long before it's structure was discovered circa 1953. But, read Watson's account of him and Crick stumbling upon The Double Helix and you clearly see that the process was one full of struggle, push-back, and incredulity among colleagues. Slowly the scientific community came to agree upon the structure we now accept – but only once the evidence was sufficient.

The concepts of subluxation and innate intelligence have been around for well over 100 years. There has yet to be convincing evidence of its validity as a construct other than anecdotal evidence which may or may not be explained by other well understood mechanisms.

Kent's argument that "doctors must not lose sight of the fact that science may not be the only valid method of inquiry" is accurate but not complete, because science is still the best method of inquiry.

As Carl Sagan shared in Demon Haunted World:

The difference between physics and metaphysics […] is not that the practitioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the other. The difference is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

And so it is with chiropractic. The study of subluxation cannot be conducted in a laboratory, so cannot be considered a science and therefore is not a valid comparison by which to call others out for scientism.

Mt. Hood 50

A quick video recap of my experience running the Mt. Hood 50 ultra-marathon in July 2014. I didn't bring a camera with me - which I regret because of the amazing views along the first half of the course - so this is all iPhone/GoPro footage from my family.

Fiscal Viability of Supplements

I attended a weekend continuing education lecture by Dan Murphy, DC, a chiropractor and instructor at Life West.

A big part of his lecture is focused on using "supplements for wellness and longevity."

He acknowledges that some people find it hard to fork out the money for so many vitamins and herbs.

"They can't afford not to!" he argues. "Imagine how much they'll spend on hospital bills 5-10 years from now."

Dr. Dan Murphy's 10 Required Supplements for Wellness and Longevity

I decided to add up the costs of all the supplements he suggests for an adult.

I busted out a new Numbers spreadsheet right there in the lecture hall. I pulled up the websites for the supplement brands he was recommending. (He swears he's not sponsored or paid to hock their wares, and yet curiously one of the brands is listed as a sponsor of his presentation.)

Cost per month of Dan Murphy's Wellness & Longevity Protocol

A single adult taking Dan Murphy's recommended protocol will have to spend $523.33 on supplements.

Add that to rent, gas, groceries, health insurance, etc.

For individual adults in 2014, the average annual income was about $64,600, or $5,383.33 per month.

That would make the Anti-Aging Supplement protocol equal to nearly 10% of monthly income.

The median family income in 2014 was $53,657 annually, or $4,471.42 per month.

A family of 4 would have to spend $2,093.32—nearly half of their income—on pills.

Of course, I wouldn't expect someone like Dan Murphy to understand the inequity. During his lecture he humble-bragged about spending $900 on a textbook because he just "had to have" this one image that proved a point.

And this doesn't even begin to consider the efficacy of the recommended supplements, many of which have come under scrutiny.

Going to Mars!

NASA is letting you send your name to Mars on the microchip of a space probe. Get your boarding pass too!