Chiropractics is an excellent case study to think through what @Ghost_Image_, and others, have described as the modern politics of distinguishing between science / religion / superstition. Embedded in each category is a set of value judgments. (1/7) #acrel #amrel
As Holly Folk explores in "The Religion of Chiropractic," founder DD Palmer was a spiritualist and himself described chiropractic as a religion. Skeptics even then called it a superstition. His son, BJ Palmer, sought to make chiropractic more respectable, to some extent. (2/7)
Most chiropractors today insist that it is a science. Medical doctors usually agree that it can be an effective treatment for lower back pain, but demur on if it can help neck pain or even knee pain. The latter is what I am seeing a chiropractor for rn! (3/7)
But some chiropractors today believe that they can help a variety of ailments beyond back pain. Arguing how the spinal cord is a key area for the operations of the nervous system, some say they can help stomach issues, headaches, allergies, and so on. (4/7)
Chiropractors are a diverse lot, too. There is a lot of internal contestation about certifications and schools of practices. Most are vying to establish their practices as scientifically grounded. Some are embarrassed by a somewhat popular anti-medical establishment ethos. (5/7)
My dad is a chiropractor. Anecdotally, his patients report progress, beyond just fixing their back pain. He downplays DD Palmer's religious inspirations and vouches for his scientific methods based on personal experience. Also has some anti-medical establishment sentiment. (6/7)
Is chiropractic a superstition, a science, or a religion? *shrug* It seems to help people, usually, and for a relatively low cost. Importantly: chiropractors have convinced the public of their effectiveness enough so that my insurance covers 60% of the cost. So that's good. (7/7)
