Dr. Thomas V. Giordano comments, in a series
of posts, on the history and concept of vitalism, and why it should be
put to rest. The first section is a dialog which occurred between
Drs. Gary Erkfritz and Thomas Giordano. The second dialog section
involves responses from Dr. Tedd Koren, in which Dr. Koren included comments
received from Dr. Harris Coulter. Each section indicates pertinent
comments from the participants, which occurred in earlier posts.
Read the series and see what you think about chiropractic continuing to
embrace this age old belief:
Due to the length of this
file, it is also available for download and printing, in either text or
MS-Word formats at the following links: Click here for Text
or here for MS-Word
versions.
I'll also try to explain why I think vitalism
is a farce, but first, I'd like to refresh some of our memories of the
historical events behind its' birth, stagnation and death......for it is
a dead subject.
When one speaks of Vitalism,
just what is it that one is referring to? At its' most basic, it
is the belief that matter is divided into two classes - organic and inorganic
- as determined by their reactions with heat. The observation that inorganic
material could be melted but could always be recovered by removing the
heat source and that organic compounds changed form (denatured) upon heating
and could not be recovered by removing the heat source, is the primary
pillar of the theory. The explanation cited for the difference between
organic and inorganic compounds is that inorganic materials did not contain
a "vital force". Palmer's "life force" and "Innate Intelligence" are born
of this concept.
Vitalism can be more
distinctly defined as: "a doctrine that the functions of a living organism
are due to a vital principle distinct from physiochemical forces." In other
words, the philosophy posits that living things possess a vital force that
energizes them in an unmeasurable, nonphysical, nonchemical manner which
acts beyond the laws of physics. Vitalists are of the opinion that the
biochemical and physical investigations of life processes can never lead
to an ultimate understanding of the nature of life because, by this definition,
the vital force cannot be comprehended.
The concept is very
old, indeed, and whether one refers to this "life force" as élan
vital, pranha, ki, qi, mana, vis medicatrix naturae, pneuma or innate intelligence,
they are all referring to the same, vital principle.
Now, for brevity, I'll
not to go into the Aristotelian "Critical Vitalism" with its' four precepts,
for Aristotle clearly distinguished and separated the physiologoi (natural
scientists) from the theologoi (religious orders) to rid his investigations
into the "physis" of dogmatic theological doctrines. I'll, instead,
concentrate on "Naïve Vitalism", which is a haphazard conglomeration
of metaphysical ideas on life forces, generative fluids, and animal heat,
directly influencing Palmer's "theories". I'll respond from this
position, for this is the vitalism that people refer to, not Aristotle's.
> > [Giordano]...Then, we come down to
the problem in a nutshell; we
> > aver that there exists an hypothetical
construct that we call the
> >"vertebral subluxation". Our
profession is based upon its
> > determination and correction; it is
the clinical basis universally of
> > chiropractic "care", though we seek
no absolute proof that it is a true
> > entity.
>
> [Erkfritz]...I
think, somewhere in this profession, someone has to be
> seeking proof...
The "classic" VS hypothesis
will never be proven, Gary; by definition! It is for this reason
that we don't seek its' proof; we don't NEED to, under the definition that
has been given it. This is one of the earmarks of vitalism, it is
by nature, unprovable and, at the same time, irrefutable.
For our purposes, we
should not confuse the physiological effects of manipulation, which is
a measurable entity, with "allowing Innate Intelligence to flow".
Anything which is measurable is, by definition, not embraced by the vitalist
theory. That a subluxated vertebra has physiological effects is probable
and may be demonstrated, under the right conditions. This, too, places
it outside of the vitalist construct. It is that component of the
definition of the "classic" hypothetical VS - "impeding Innate Intelligence"
- which renders the entire hypothesis "vitalistic". All the other
characteristics - loss of proper juxtaposition, occlusion of an IVF, compression
of a nerve, and the like, are ALL "mechanistic", in nature - they are quantifiable
and reproducible. Even if , hypothetically, there existed an
élan vital which is neither governed by, nor effected by, physical
laws, how may it be influenced by the physical, mechanical, characteristics
of a vertebra being "subluxated"? By what reasoning would an irritated
nerve impede its' flow?
> > [Giordano]...Its' feet are planted
in vitalism - that there is an
> > "unmeasurable, non-chemical, non-physical
energy which vitalizes
> > living tissue" - we call this "Innate
Intelligence".
>
> [Erkfritz]...Actually, according
to all of the Green Books I've read, I
> think it's called "Life Force."
"Innate Intelligence" is the wisdom of
> the body that maintains homeostasis.
Well, I was taught the
Innate Intelligence was a corporeal expression of "Universal Intelligence"
and was indistinguishable from the "Life Force". I, too, was required
to read the Green Books and recite the 33 Principles, which I could liken
to Monty Python's "Holy Grail"! But that's another story, and one
best avoided.
> > [Giordano]...Yet, still, there are
those who profess that the
> > "adjustment" liberates this "vital
energy" which "flows along the
> > nerves", which cannot be measured
and which is not governed
> > by the laws of physics, to heal the
body.
>
> [Erkfritz]...I don't know -- I thought
"life force" has been measured for
> years. Perhaps I've got the
wrong take on that. Isn't that what EEGs
> are about?
Remember, Gary; EEGs
are measurements of bioelectric activity; this has nothing to do with anything
vitalistic. Bioelectric brain activity, discovered by Hans Berger
in 1929, as is nerve conduction velocity, is a quantifiable entity.
It cannot, therefore, be considered vitalistic.
> > [Giordano]...Can anyone not realize
how incredibly stupid that
> > sounds?
>
> [Erkfritz]...Stated the way
you have, yes, that sounds stupid. But, it
> sounds stupid to those with a different
Newtonian-Cartesian
> reference point. It doesn't sound
stupid at all to the people who have
> read Dance of the Wu Li Masters or
The Tao of Physics. Granted, a
> little too simplistic, but nonetheless
believable.
>
> > [Giordano]...Vitalism is a complete
farce! It has been a dead issue
> > since the late 1890's.
>
> [Erkfritz]...Says who?
Okay, we can start
with Galvani and Volta, because both Newton and Des Cartes didn't bother
to refute the fundamental principle of vitalism. How about Matteucci,
Du Bois-Reymond, Julius Bernstein, von Helmholtz, who as early as the 1840's,
each contributed to dispelling the vitalist proposition that electricity
was the elusive vital force. Biological electromagnetic fields are
in diametric opposition to the vitalist concept of an "unmeasurable, non-chemical,
non-physical force that energizes living tissue."
What of Wohler, who
in 1828, disproved the bedrock principle of vitalism - organic compounds
couldn't be produced from inorganic ones because they lacked that "vital
force" - when he synthesized urea from ammonium cyanate?
Then there is Ludwig,
who in 1847 devised a kymograph and proved the mechanical nature of the
heart which explained how the blood flowed, not by a vital force which
was purported by the vitalists, but by mechanical pumping. Then there
is Kuhne, with his discovery of trypsin as a "ferment" in 1876, which
showed that proteins were digested by its' action, and not by "grinding"
within the stomach, as envisioned by the vitalists. The term "enzyme" was
later given for these catalysts, and study into their nature exploded with
the industrial revolution.
Then there is Buchner's
experiments with killed yeast extracts as still being capable of fermentation
which put to rest the vitalistic idea that only living organisms can ferment
sugars.
Others adding there
names to the non-vitalists are Borelli, Malpighi, Sylvius, Darwin, Virchow,
Claude Bernard, Ludec, Lund, Barth, d'Arsenval, Libet and Gerard, Otto
Loewi, Szent-Gyorgyi and on and on... The list and activities of these
would be too encyclopedic to detail here, but how many of these names sound
familiar?
It was the impotence
of vitalism that liberated these minds to discover what they did.
The underpinning of vitalism has been knocked down for about a century,
now; but you wouldn't know it by what many of our colleagues purport to
be an "absolute" when talking about biology, health and disease (no hyphen,
please!).
> > [Giordano]...Medicine does not recognize
our hypothesis as valid.
> > Elements of the hypothesis may be
correct, but taken as a whole, no
> > reasonably educated person can take
it seriously without proof, and
> > the proof of that particular hypothesis
will NEVER COME because,
> > by definition, it is unmeasurable!
>
> [Erkfritz]...What was Dr. Suh doing
all of those years at the University
> of Colorado?
Well, Gary; whatever
it was, it had nothing to do with proving anything "vitalistic". Placing
an object with the weight of a dime on a nerve to see if there is any effect
is, by its' very nature, a poke in the vitalist's eye! The weight
is measurable, the effects upon nervous tissue is quantifiable; nothing
"vitalistic" there, and yet, many would construe this as a validation of
the VS! It may be a valid observation as far as possible, minimally
compressive forces within an IVF, but its' a long way from proving either
the subluxation hypothesis or the existence of Innate Intelligence, in
fact, Suh's findings prove JUST THE OPPOSITE of what many DCs infer they
actually mean!
> [Erkfritz]...Well, I understand your
position, Tom. And, I agree, much
> like discussing religion with people,
belief systems are firmly set in
> both camps of the issue. I
respect and honor your position. And, I
> agree that if the profession doesn't
make concentrated efforts to
> produce some verifiable experimentation
(or, at least, not that I'm
> aware of), that Thomas Kuhn's history
lesson will be learned by the
> profession. As Major DeJarnette
found out years ago, it just takes
> buck$$.
I don't know, Gary;
I don't think it's a question of money; I believe it to be more a question
of catching up on over 200 years of scientific advancements which debase
the vitalistic quicksand of chiropractic. This profession must only
do two things to advance - rid itself of the vitalistic baggage that has
stifled investigation by its' fat and happy complacency; get rid of the
dogma and replace it with honest, scientific curiosity and, denounce bogus,
vitalistic practices shaded under the umbrella of "chiropractic".
That is the long and
short of it!
> [Erkfritz]...As a child I remember
my parents taking me to the
> chiropractor in the middle of the
night screaming with earaches.
> This was after taking me to every
EENT guy in the City of Detroit
> with no success. As I recall
from the age of four that, after a few
> adjustments by good old Dr. Wilbur
Fields (who was a medical
> doctor turned chiropractor) that
I never had earaches again. Now,
> what if Dr. Fields had said "well,
I don't treat earaches because it's
> not been scientifically published
and I don't treat children because
> the medical profession doesn't think
children have this fictitious
> entity called a 'subluxation,' nor
do they think anybody has this
> entity", where would my hearing have
been? I know that Dr. Fields
> had a belief system, but I never
bothered to ask. I was just thankful
> to be rid of the earaches.
And I, too, Gary, would
love to see anecdote turned into accepted, clinical procedures, but under
the scrutiny of scientific investigation. How can this be done with
people who are just a half-step beyond spontaneous generation in their
views? How can we do this is when we've already, voluntarily, declared
that "we only treat subluxations" in our scopes?
Therein lies the folly
of vitalistic chiropractic; it is a profession with narrowed eyes and closed
minds, browbeating the mechanist while, all the while, grasping at bits
and pieces of mechanistic science interpreted through a kaleidoscope of
vitalistic prisms in an attempt to breath life into a cadaver which was
buried in the late 1890's. Vitalism is a DEAD ISSUE in biology, though
it seems that someone forgot to invite D.D. to the funeral before B.J.
ran him over with his car!
> [Erkfritz]...So, while I have agreement
with most of your issues,
> everyone tries to explain whatever
phenomenon their dealing with in
> terms THEY and their contemporaries
understand. That has
> changed over the years, obviously...people
have become more
> sophisticated in some areas (Italy,
for example). But I don't think we
> should throw the baby out with the
bathwater. We still have 20-45
> years left! Never can tell
what will happen.
I understand you view,
Gary; but the very point is that chiropractic's contemporaries really aren't;
they're 100 years ahead of this profession! They'll never understand
why vitalists persist in ignoring what has been proven and screaming "paradigm
shifts" as a justification.
Now, I may hold the
DC,
Gary, but I am always a Zoologist, specialized in microbiology. Perhaps
this training was the seed for my inability to look at all of those who
contributed to the biological sciences and place it upon a scale countered
by the Palmers and see parity. I muse over colleagues who quote from
that silly, little book D.D. authored in 1910, and aver his observations
on things biological as gospel! But, now I'm getting nasty, and nobody
cares, anyway...
Well, I'm going back
to watching the reports from the NATO bombing of that political dinosaur
across the Adriatic from me. You see, even politics has those anchored
too deeply into fallacious philosophies - and what damage do they birth!
Tom
Dr. Thomas V. Giordano
To: Tedd Koren <TKOREN1@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Vitalism(?)(was Overzealous
MDs?)]
Reply-To: "Dr.Thomas V. Giordano" <tgiordano@mail.clio.it>
Hello Tedd,
I thought this was a private
post, but since I saw that it was forwarded to the chiro-list, I hope you
don't mind that I've CC'd it there as well.
To the listers, most
of the ideas expressed here will be repeated from previous posts - for
this I apologize a priori - but this is because I have no idea just
what it is that Tedd read prior to the post that was forwarded to him.
This e-mail is seemingly
places me in good company; for that, I thank you, Tedd, for the opportunity
to defend what you refer to as a "straw man" argument on my part.
Historically, if any one group is guilty of "straw man" argumentation,
it is the vitalists. Mechanists are always wont to prove what they
aver, and have been quite successful at it.
I'll preface my response
with this lemma, for the other two gentlemen who don't know me: my undergraduate
degree is in Zoology, with a specialization in Microbiology and minor concentrations
in Mammalian Physiology and Physical Anthropology. I'm an '85 graduate
of Rutgers University (diploma issued in May of 1986). I'm also an
'88 graduate of the very school that Dr. Koren co-fathered - P.C.S.C..
My instructors in the philosophy of chiropractic were both Thom Gelardi
and Joe Strauss. Joe is one of the most open-minded individuals I
have ever met, Thom was less so.
My pre-chiropractic
education dealt not only with the "mechanistic" view, but also with a thorough
exposure to all of the historical perspectives from the ancient Helleni
through to the latter part of this century. You see, the significance of
biological discovery is only relevant in context with the commonly held,
contemporary theory which it dispels. I only state this to illustrate
that my previous education was not in Liberal Arts and that the concepts
I have cited in the original post are very familiar to me.
I would also beg you
not to take personal offense at what I will write below, as I have taken
no offense at Tedd's assertion of my argument regarding vitalism as farcical
is not accurately based.
> [Coulter]... "The Vitalism
argument that Dr. Giordano presents is a
> straw man one. That is, he
defines vitalism (or empiricism)
> incorrectly and then attacks his
definition in order to debunk
> vitalism. (Sort of what some
people have done to Network). Allow
> me to present part of a paper I have
written and submitted to a
> medical journal (the journal I had
earlier discussed with you) that
> deals with this issue. From
there we can perhaps hear from Dr.
> Giordano and discuss questions or
ideas he may have."
Your basis for my alleged
"straw man" argument is that I have defined "vitalism" incorrectly.
So, let us begin there.
Dorland's (25th edition)
defines Vitalism as," the theory that biological activities are directed
by a supernatural force; opposed to mechanism."
According to Webster's
Third New World Dictionary, vitalism is defined as, "a doctrine that the
functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from
physiochemical forces."
According to Prof. Fred
Wilson of the Rochester Institute of Technology, vitalism - D.D.'s brand
of vitalism - was "born in the belief that matter was divided into two
classes based on behavior with respect to heat: organic and inorganic.
Inorganic material could be melted but could always be recovered by removing
the heat source. Organic compounds changed form upon heating and could
not be recovered by removing the heat source. The proposed explanation
for the difference between organic and inorganic compounds was the Vitalism
Theory, which stated that inorganic materials did not contain the "vital
force'' of life." This premise lasted until the mid-nineteenth century.
The above concept was
proposed and set in motion in the late 1600's by Georg Ernst Stahl, a German
physicist interested in combustion, and it became the core belief in "classic"
(Naive) vitalism. It was he who actually gave birth to what you refer
to as "vitalism" through the the above concepts. Please keep this
in mind, because the basis of the "classic" vitalism from which chiropractic
was born is there; it is NOT in that of Aristotle's "Critical Vitalism".
If you read my original post, you'll see that I was very careful to make
this distinction from the onset.
Now, Tedd, I ask you;
how is the definition in my original post different from those above?
This IS what vitalism is defined to be. I did not ideate this definition,
as you purport, I recited it from three different sources. Greater
minds than mine have debunked this form of vitalism, and I reported the
events in a distinct chronology, along with the vitalistic tenets they
dispelled. This is history; I didn't fabricate it, I merely reported
it.
In addition, there was
no attempt on my part to pull empiricism or rationalism into the fray;
nor was my post directed at giving an alternative view - it was merely
to relate the historical facts behind the debunking and subsequent death
of Naive Vitalism, as every single brick of this theoretical wall had been
knocked out by the late 1890's. This is no fantasy; it is fact, whether
the vitalists wish to believe it or not. That D.D. refused
to acknowledge or understand this, I have no doubts, based upon his opinions
authored 15 years after vitalism's death knell.
> [Koren]...Vitalism (Empiricism)
vs. Mechanism (Rationalism)
> According to medical historian Harris
Coulter, Ph.D. in his classic
> work Divided Legacy, two internally
logical yet contrasting
> systems of healing philosophy, vitalism
(also known as Empiricism)
> and mechanism (also known as Rationalism)
have co-existed for
> over 2,500 years. They differ markedly
on concepts such as
> "disease," "cause," and "symptom,"
the principles of therapy, the
> relationship between theory and practice
- in a word, all elements of
> a medical philosophy. Throughout
history the pendulum of
> acceptance and power has swung between
them. Mechanism's
> recent domination began at the turn
of this century but its limitations
> and extremes have resulted in many
individuals turning to the
> vitalist approach found in many alternative
healing practices gaining
> wide acceptance today. Historically
the swing back to vitalism has
> helped spark needed reforms in mechanism.
Coulter has his facts
slightly skewed, for the roots of Naive Vitalism are to be found in the
late Renaissance, but didn't begin to spring forth leaves until the late
1600's. Even Harvey and Descartes believed in some form of "vital
principle" which distinguished living from non-living matter. I readily
admit that Newton was a bit too mechanistic - even for my tastes!
After all, something had to give the machine "life"! Harvey thought
that the vital principle was the blood; Descartes viewed it as a wind or
a flame. Even Shakespeare referred to it, years earlier, as a "brief
candle"! The "vitalism" to which you are referring was not part of
Aristotle's view - he referred to the "inherent nature" or "fundamental
existence" of the body, not to an ethereal "vital force" that is erroneously
credited to him.
> [Koren]...In Divided Legacy Vol. 4,
Coulter describes the major
> difference between the two doctrines
as the espousal of vitalism by
> the Empirics vs. Rationalism's mechanistic
or chemical
> understanding of the living organism.
Although it is commonly
> believed that vitalism is a belief
in life energies--anima, elan vital,
> prana, pneuma, chi, ki, life force
and the like--vitalism is really
> about biological laws.
Yes, it is commonly
believed so because this IS precisely what vitalism purports; but the biological
"laws" that these concepts attempted to explain were incorrect and proven
to be so - and I gave ample examples of their fallacy in my original post.
Naive vitalism really claims only ONE law - and I quote from my original
post - "...that living things possess a vital force that energizes them
in an unmeasurable, nonphysical, nonchemical manner which acts beyond the
laws of physics. Vitalists are of the opinion that the biochemical and
physical investigations of life processes can never lead to an ultimate
understanding of the nature of life because, by this definition, the vital
force cannot be comprehended." There is absolutely nothing made of
"straw" in this statement.
Coulter, on the other
hand, makes the same error that many have made with Vitalism in his statement
below:
> [Coulter...to Koren]...Vitalism
states that the laws governing living organisms
> differ from those of lifeless matter.
The organism is reactive, at all
> times coping with, and attempting
to overcome, the stresses which
> impinge upon it from outside.
It behaves purposively, the nature
> and form of its reaction being determined
by the specific
> environmental stress it encounters.
It responds to challenge, which
> no aggregate or assembly of non-living
substances can ever do.
Here, he [Coulter] is
mixing and confusing principle concepts of Aristotle's Critical Vitalism,
Organicism, Adaptationalism and Holism.
Aristotle of Stagira
(384-322 B.C.E.) gave us one of the core concepts in what is now, retrospectively,
referred to as "Critical Vitalism". The concept was known as "physis"
and it was integral to Greek thought.
Physis, which is defined
loosely as "nature", but more clearly understood as "fundamental existence",
was envisioned as the bridge which linked the psyche (soul) with the soma
(body). In other words, the expression of the soul within the body
was manifested through the characteristic nature of that body. Physis
was also considered a "constant", and in opposition to the concept of "nomos"
which meant "custom", "convention", "changeable", or "law". Examples
of "nomos" would be written laws, morality or customs which are subject
to change or revision. Basically, the constancy of physis was taken
to mean that life forms are subject to natural laws which don't change,
though the organism itself can change over time, but this, in itself, was
a "constant" which could not be avoided.
Aristotle himself divided
the philosophers of his day into two groups - the physiologoi and the theologoi.
The physiologoi were natural philosophers while the theologoi believed
the gods were causal in all activity in the universe. If one considers
that Aristotle separated these two fields just under 2,400 years ago so
as not to confuse matters of natural governance of living systems, with
those of the cosmos, it is amazing observe that this trend was reversed
in the 1600's and attributing the basis for "Naive Vitalism" to the very
man who chased out the "priest" out the "physician".
"Physis" is the root
word for physics, physical, and physician. It is clear that the Greeks
understood that the inherent characteristics of any organism were to be
found in and determined by the natural environment and were subject to
its' laws; Naive Vitalism states nothing of the kind, by it's definition
- which, again, merely states the organic compounds are distinct from inorganic
compounds in that they are energized by an ethereal "vital force" - that
is the extent of it! This was the cornerstone for the explanation of physiological
phenomena from that point on.
Also, Aristotle, whose
lectures were recorded in about 150 volumes dealing with Physics, Metaphysics
and the Nature of the Heavens and the Earth, clearly differentiated the
laws governing our planet from those governing the cosmos. From my
understanding, there was no consideration of a Universal Intelligence which
expressed itself through the body as Innate Intelligence, being a subset
thereof, in Aristotle's view - at least among the physiologoi, of which
he was a major component.
This confusion, in my
view, between blindly and dogmatically accepting an élan vital,
which defies investigation, for Aristotle's clearly investigable "physis"
was the most damaging of all, because it effectively blighted any investigation
into that "fundamental nature" to which the greek referred! It is
not merely a matter of semantics, Tedd, it was later institutionalized
by, I'm sorry to say, the Roman Catholic Church, which very boldly embraced
the very allopathy which you counter! It took us 15 centuries to
break free from this oppression (but I won't go into this, though).
The basic claim of "Organicism"
is that organisms must be interpreted as functioning wholes and cannot
be understood by means of physics and chemistry alone. This was based in
the gestaltic concept that the organization of living things is greater
than the sum of its' individual parts. The two best known organismic
theorists were Ludwig von Bertalanffy and Edward Stuart Russell.
Most anti-reductionists subscribe, at least in some part, to the organismic
doctrine, particularly to its' holistic claim, and have "melded" it into
the vitalistic mix, though it was never part of Vitalism to begin with!
The other two concepts which this theory embraced which were conveniently
"ignored" by the vitalists were that all symptoms were caused by organic
disease and that each of the individual organs of a living body has its'
own specialized constitution. This could be further extrapolated
to include looking at the entire earth as a living organism and all of
the life forms hereon as part of the whole - the Gaia phenomenon, as it
is referred to.
The concept of "adaptation
to environmental stresses" is Darwinian, not vitalistic! As far as
conglomerates responding to challenge, did you ever see a diamond?
How about ice melt? How about land erode? These are all responses
to "external challenges", as well, and yet, there is no vital principle
attached.
> [Koren]...This does not mean that
organic matter possesses unique
> features that differ from inorganic
matter, after all chemists are able
> to create "organic" molecules; urea
was synthesized over 100 years
> ago.
Yes, now this is backstepping,
because Wohler's urea synthesis in 1828 was directed precisely at dispelling
the erroneous, core concept of Naive Vitalism, as I reported in the original
post - synthesizing an organic compound out of "lifeless" inorganics -
and this is why his experiment was so significant. It was at this
point that the vitalists fell back on the false notions that fermentation
and electricity were proof of vitalism's veracity. These, too, were
blown away in short order, and I reported this in my post, as well.
> [Koren]... Among chiropractic's vitalist
assumptions are the following:
Here, Tedd, you are
assuming what you are about to say are solely vitalistic concepts; they
aren't!
> [Koren]... 1) - The body is intelligent
and behaves in a purposive
> way. There is something inside
living creatures which causes them
> to respond and learn--things a mere
collection of chemicals can
> never do. To mechanists the body
is a collection of chemicals
> obeying general laws of chemistry,
physics and mechanics.
Your first premise is
organismic at most, and holistic at least; not vitalistic. You then
contrast this with a good, but incomplete, view of "mechanism". I'd
consider this a bit intellectually dishonest. Vitalism makes no claims
as to intelligent organization nor to the purposeful characteristics of
living organisms beyond the point that they are imbued with a vital principle;
by it's definition! How may an élan vital have purpose or
intent within a physical universe if it is not of that physical universe?
> [Koren]... 2) - Illness is seen
as a reactive, curative response and
> symptoms as beneficial phenomena
which should not be
> suppressed or eliminated. To
mechanists the symptom is
> intrinsically harmful and must be
removed or combated.
You surprise me, here,
Tedd; it was the VITALISTIC ALLOPATHS who held the latter view. Remember
Andrew Taylor Still? This was precisely why he created Osteopathy
- to add science to medicine! This is not an accurate statement in
that mechanists also see illness as a reactive, curative response and symptoms
as beneficial - to a point! It is EXAGGERATED symptomatology which
is harmful.
> [Koren]... 3) - Vitalist therapeutics
seek to strengthen the patient's
> powers of resistance and compensate
for the predisposition to
> become ill. Mechanism is far less
interested in the body's resistance
> or predisposition, in general, mechanism
is more concerned with the
> "disease" than with the host organism.
Really; then what is
the basis for all the study in hygienics, immunology, inflammation, the
human genome project, PNI, proinflammation, apoptosis, virology, parasitology
and the like? These endeavors attempt to understand the processes
to both treat and prevent. You fail to see that the mechanist's point
of departure for the future is in enhancing innate resistance, gene therapies
and programmed cell death. Where is the proof for your assertion
that "vitalistic therapeutics" (a contradiction in your own terms, I might
add) actually fulfill what they seek to attain? Your view of the
mechanist is a century old, Tedd and this really surprises me, knowing
that your brothers are MDs! You are mentioning two sides of the same
coin and giving the impression that only "vitalism" has the answer and
this is bluntly incorrect! As I said, the concept of "a vital principle
which acts in a non-chemical, non-physical and unmeasurable manner to vitalize
living tissue" is a dead issue in biology.
> [Koren]... Thus, chiropractors
do not limit their care to patients with
> certain conditions, but instead to
all individuals, no matter what their
> presenting symptoms, who have spinal
distortions interfering with
> their nervous system interrupting
their connection to the innate (or
> inborn) intelligence that runs their
body. Free of spinal nerve
> interference the individual must
benefit.
Now, you've said something
that I can agree with, but only minimally. Your conclusion is not
supported by your "assumptions". You've neither given a clear reason
why or how "spinal distortions" interfere with the nervous system or how
this will interfere with the "innate intelligence" of the body. Again,
this statement is based in vitalistic dogma, not fact. When you start
talking about "the nervous system" you're talking mechanism. When
you talk about "spinal distortions", you're talking mechanism. When
you talk about "interference", you're talking mechanism. Anything
"measurable" is not embraced by the vitalist theory - as it it universally
defined.
After all is said and
done, Tedd, I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of just how Innate
Intelligence - that unmeasurable, ethereal, non-physiochemical abstraction
which acts beyond the natural laws of physics - can be effected by a vertebra
out of its' proper juxtaposition or by the "adjustment" of the vertebra
back into its' proper juxtaposition!
I can assure you, though,
Tedd, if there is an answer to be found, that the answer will be found
by the mechanists, and not the vitalists. First of all, a vitalist
wouldn't even bother to look and second of all, vitalist's have never been
able to support their position with provable fact since Stahl first set
down the dogma in the 1600's; which is why it was so easy to refute with
reproducible facts through experimentation!
I would invite you to
re-read my original post, and show me the error of my ways, Tedd.
Instead of just claiming that it is a "straw man" argument; show me why.
You know, it was too long ago that vitalists believed that mice were spontaneously
generated in straw and that the heart did not pump blood! I hope
this isn't part of chiropractic theory, as well!
All I have seen from
the vitalists are those who seek to justify their views by clutching and
grabbing at bits and pieces of "mechanistic" science for proof. You know,
just knowing the nomenclature of a subject, by no means, puts one on the
same level as those who deal with the material substance of their disciplines.
It's a big jump to cite Suh and think he gives any rationale to anything
"vitalistic" in his findings - quite the contrary!
How would you like to
see chiropractic vindicated in a reproducible manner; no bull, no song
and dance? It's easy, just replace Innate Intelligence with Interleukin
6 or some other cytokine! I find it very telling that nobody is interested
in the fact that the proof of our subluxation is staring us in the face,
but the profession is too damned ignorant in the biological sciences to
drop its' vitalistic bag of bricks!. This is probably because it
would require an explanation of something non-mystical - ain't no fun in
that!
Ciao da Lecce,
Tom
Dr. Thomas V. Giordano
via Taranto 58/A
73100 LECCE (LE) Italia
-----------------------
To: Tedd Koren <TKOREN1@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Vitalism
Hello Tedd,
Please excuse the delay,
but I pondered seriously over responding to Dr.Coulter's opinion's which
you've forwarded to me; I am a bit amazed at some of the allegations and
assertions you report that he made. I'll go through this post as
clearly as I am able.
> Tedd Koren, D.C. writes:
> This is in reply to Dr. Giordano's
discussion regarding vitalism and
> mechanism (also known as Empiricism
and Rationalism).
>
> I discussed the issue with Harris
Coulter, Ph.D. (Columbia
> University) whose 4 volume series,
Divided Legacy, written over a 30
> year period deals with this precise
issue. Coulter's 3000+ pages
> are his magnum opus. He is
one of the premier medical historians
> of our time. I am honored to
know the man. Being a multilinguist,
> Coulter studied many of the original
writings of the historical figures
> in their own languages. His work
was essentially a clarification of the
> various philosophies of medicine
- finding a common ground in
> philosophy that has snaked its way
from the pre-Hippocratic Corpus
> (2500 BC) to present times.
I have no comment for
your appraisal of Dr. Coulter, other than to ask what his Ph.D. and previous
degrees are in. I'll take this introduction on face value and will
readily acknowledge that Columbia University is a fine institution - I've
been there many times and have used their library facilities on several
occasions back in the 80's. Similarly, I, too, am fluent in five
languages, though my Latin is stronger than my Classic Greek, which is
still relatively good.
> [Koren]... I sent him (Coulter) Dr.
Giordano's letter and upon reading
> it he called me and was quite irritated:
"I spent 30 years
> unentangling this aspect of medical
history and Dr. Giordano
> is entangling it all over.
I strongly suggest he read Divided Legacy,
> particularly volume 4 to understand
this." Dr. Coulter said.
I cannot imagine why
he'd be "irritated" at my commentary on vitalism as a farcical notion.
I cannot comment upon his attempts to "untangle" the philosophical aspects
of medical history, nor the time it took him to do it. I beg to differ,
however, that my comments were less than clear and succinct about the chronological
and systematic destruction of the Vitalism Theory. My argument was
based in historically verifiable fact recorded in any reputable sources
on the material one may wish to consult.
> [Coulter... to Koren]... "Essentially
Dr. Giordano raises too many
> dead issues, straw man arguements
and red herrings. I will not
> spend my time refutting all of them
but I will deal with the two main
> and most important parts of Vitalism:
Firstly, the body responds
> purposively which no mechanical system
can do. The body is a
> teleological system, it strives for
a purpose. That is really the main
> point of vitalism: the body's purpose
is directed towards healing."
I see Dr. Coulter uses
the same tactic that you used, Tedd, in responding to my first treatment
on the material. Dead issues, straw men, red herrings - all very
colorful phrases, but these accusations prove nothing other than an a priori
attempt to discredit me by ad hominum diversion without bothering to refute
my statements with facts, as though his opinions are factual, are self-evident
and need no comment.
At this point, I must
reiterate that vitalism is defined as, "a doctrine that the functions of
a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physiochemical
forces." This is concise, simple and accurate. There is nothing
more to the theory, other than what it is defined to be. This, or
a slight variation of this, is the definition you will find anywhere you
wish to consult. I cited two references in my response to you already.
If you wish to discredit Dorland's and Webster's dictionaries, by admonishing
me to "consider the source", choose any other reputable dictionary you
would like.
The vitalism theory
states nothing about purposeful or adaptive expressions of living organism.
That teleology is associated with vitalism, needs little explanation; it
would seem a logical premise for the creationist's position, but to assume
that this concept must - at all costs - be based upon a "vital force" energizing
living tissue, is erroneous. God may or may not exist and He may
or may not have created the design to provide specific functions.
Refuting vitalism is in no way a negation of a Divine Creator, Aristotle's
Ultimate Causation, or even the theory of evolution. To assume that
there is agency in the design and function of living organisms, actually,
has nothing to do with any vital principle "energizing" living tissue.
In fact, these pre-Darwinian notions have provided deep concern among biologists
because, even if one is wont to give rational explanations to agency, one
cannot due to the association with some vitalistic "life force" and that
there is seemingly required a "backward causation" to explain future outcomes
from present traits. The concept is, thusly, rendered empirically
untestable.
I really don't want
to stray into teleology, other than to say that biologists - yes, even
the mechanists - readily acknowledge, as do I, that living organisms have
purposeful existences, the ability to adapt to external stressors and express
mechanisms of repair and regeneration. Why must this be based the
vitalism's élan vital when it may more readily be explained in terms
of genetics, biochemistry and other physical sciences through investigation?
One other thing, you
quote Dr. Coulter as stating," ... That is really the main point of vitalism:
the body's purpose is directed towards healing." I believe this to
be in error for two reasons; firstly, the vitalism theory states nothing
of the kind, and secondly, I would state that "survival" is the basis of
the organism's purpose, not healing. The ability of an organism to
heal itself and regenerate damaged tissue is a function of survival, just
as programmed cell death is. I'll not talk here of Apoptosis, of
lemmings and of altruism, though they would support my position; perhaps
some other time.
> [Coulter...to Koren]..."Secondarily,
as exemplified by the Law of
> Cure, the body has a memory.
These two are the main differences
> between vitalism and mechanism."
I have a bit of difficulty
seeing the connection, here: the concept of recording insult and damage
on a neurological level is governed by the neuromodulatory, neuroregulatory
and neuromediatory effects of the biochemistry of pro-inflammation upon
the neurones in various structures of the brain. Anamnestic immunological
responses are also mechanisms of cellular and humoral "memory" - these
are mechanisms proposed by the scientists involved in their study; what
have they to do with vitalism? Again, vitalism says nothing about
corporeal memory, in fact, as defined above, vitalism would seem to be
in contrast to these "investigable" activities.
> [Coulter ... to Koren]..."The nature
of the material is no longer a
> relevant question. The idea
that Wohler's synthesis of urea was the
> "death knell" of vitalism is an old
wife's tale with no basis in historical
> fact. It wasn't recognized
as such during Wohler's lifetime. Dr.
> Giordano should read my introduction
to Divided Legacy Vol. 4
> where I discuss this. But the
nature of the material is no longer the
> argument, its a question of biological
laws, the body reacts
> purposively, something no lifeless
collection of matter can do, and
> the body has a memory.
I'd like Dr. Giordano to comment upon
> this."
I'll be happy to comment.
Dr. Coulter's appraisal would have come as a complete shock to Berzelius,
Kolbe and Berthelot as well as Wohler himself! Wohler published his
findings on the synthesis of urea in 1828 after repeated confirmation of
his findings. His professor and personal friend, Jons Berzelius didn't
believe his student's results. Though not a vitalist per se, Berzelius
did espouse the tenet that organic compounds couldn't be produced from
non-organic precursors. After others had reproduced Wohler's experiment
and verified his findings, even Berzelius admitted his error and discarded
his fallacious notion. By the 1860's, Adolph Kolbe and Pierre Berthelot
had synthesized both acetic acid and salicylic acid, building upon Wohler's
earlier observations. All of these men are icons in the field of
inorganic chemistry - which they pioneered! It was they who realized
that the major difference between organic and inorganic compounds was based,
not on reactions to heat, but upon the basis of carbon structures!
Since Wohler died in 1882, his comment is not only false, but an insult
to my intelligence and a complete denial of historically verifiable fact
- the very act Dr. Coulter accused me of! Perhaps he can quote the
"old wife" whom he cites; it couldn't have been Wohler's as she died at
a very young age.
If Dr. Coulter refers
to the fact that vitalists didn't accept the importance of Wohler's experiment
and findings, I agree; they still don't recognize it! Instead they
worm around it by absorbing tenets not related to the vitalism theory and
claiming them as "vitalistic" and redimentioning the importance of inorganic
and biochemistry.
Also, the "death knell"
for vitalism came a bit later in biology, after other fallacious arguments
on fermentation and bioelectricity were dispelled. I described Wohler's
as a peg in the coffin of vitalism, and in chemistry, this was the first
in a series of blows to that theory.
The second assertion
that vitalism is not a question of the nature of material, but that of
biological laws is another example of an act of desperation by those who
would force an ad hoc modification to the vitalism theory when confronted
with its' own fallaciousness. Must I reiterate the definition?
Biological laws are physical laws. Vitalism was predicated upon a
"vital force" which acted beyond the realm of the physical universe.
If it is a biological law, and if it is measurable, it is ignored by the
vitalism theory, by definition.
> [Coulter...to Koren]... "Dr. Giordano
is recomplicating an issue I've
> spent my life simplifying. In his
letter there are a number of things he
> states which do not make much sense
to me. For example, I'm
> interested in his discussion of George
Ernst Stahl. I read Stahl in
> the original and I'd like to know
where Dr. Giordano got his quote, I've
> never seen it in his writings.
Stahl made a philosophical, not a
> chemical argument, as Dr. Giordano
claims."
I respectfully submit
that it is not I that am complicating this issue. Although I read Stahl's,
" Theoria Medica Vera" in english translation many, many years ago, I'm
sorry to say that I cannot quote directly from it. I will, however,
remind you that Stahl believed that living matter contained a vital principle
which he referred to as an "anima sensitiva" which distinguished it from
non-living matter. His influence upon the fields of chemistry and
physiology are a matter of historical fact - easily verifiable, should
one be so inclined. His opinions on biology and chemistry - via his
phlogiston hypothesis, which was eventually proven incorrect by Lavoisier
- set in motion the theory of Vitalism in the late 1600s. That his
philosophical claim was just that - philosophical - and that it made its'
way into the then current opinion of chemistry is also a matter of historical
fact. Refer to any valid biography of the man that you wish.
(N.B.: Dr. Stahl published his work, entitled, "Theoria medica vera, Physiologiam
et Pathologiam, tanquam doctrinae medicae partes vere contemplativas."
in Germany in the year 1708. The text was in latin and was quite
widely distributed in Europe, becoming one of the predominant opinions
underlying the contemporary
medical theory. Several editions
followed, even after Dr. Stahl's death.)
> [Coulter...to Koren]... "Further,
the statement that Aristotle wrote 150
> volumes is incorrect, it was 15."
Here, Dr. Coulter stupefies
me! Firstly, I never claimed Aristotle "wrote" anything; the line
I wrote was, "Also, Aristotle, whose lectures were recorded in about 150
volumes dealing with Physics, Metaphysics and the Nature of the Heavens
and the Earth, clearly differentiated the laws governing our planet from
those governing the cosmos."
Dr. Coulter's assertion
that Aristotle "authored" only 15 volumes would come as a revelation, not
only to Andronicus of Rhodes who, in the first century B.C.E., compiled
Aristotle's student's lecture notes, but also to the many millions who
have studied the Greek Classics from the 12 century, when they were re-introduced
to Europe, until today!.
Aristotle was headmaster
of the Lyceum in Athens for 12 years and gave lectures while walking around
in the covered walkways of the campus. The name of his school is
derived from this activity - the Paripatetic School. I can assure
you, Tedd, that Dr. Coulter is in complete error on the number of volumes
relating to those lectures. "On Metaphysics" alone contains 14 volumes;
would you like me to list the other categories of discussion and the numbers
of sections and books within each? I think not; instead I beg you
not to believe me and to look the matter up for yourself.
> [Coulter...to Koren]... "His claim
of Aristotle's use of physis, is not
> accurate. Actually this word first
appears in the Hippocratic Corpus
> as "vital force." Physis of
the body is the vital force of the body.
> Aristotle uses physis but doesn't
define it, probably because it was
> commonly understood in those days."
Commonly understood?
This flies in the face of most of the philosophical argumentation as to
just what physis meant! It was the subject of much debate among the
Greek and Italian schools. Physis was interpreted as "fundamental
existence", "inherent nature" or just simply "nature" - look the word up!
It was a concept which intended to link the psyche with the soma.
There was no sense of what one may refer to as a "vital force" ala the
vitalism theory among the physiologoi. Do you seriously think that
Aristotle, of all people, would have omitted the concept of "physis" as
a "vital force" in his lectures? That "nature" was observable and
investigable; the élan vital is not.
> [Coulter...to Koren]... "In the use
of healing it is not the root word for
> physics, physical and physician as
Dr. Giordano states."
This is laughable; go
to any etimology reference you wish and look these words up. That
should settle any debate as to the root word and that root's meaning. Dr.
Coulter would have us believe, in the first part, that "physis" means "vital
force" and then, since this cannot possibly concur with it being the root
word for physics, physician and physical, these words don't derive from
it! Isn't it much easier to simply state the truth? Wouldn't
it concur fully if these words are derived from the root word "physis"
and that that root word is taken for "nature"? His statement is as
absurd as stating that his name is spelled "Coulter" but is pronounced
"Appleseed"!
> [Coulter...to Koren]... "Organicism"
is just a part of vitalism.
> Giordano is confusing the argument."
Organicism is a much
more complex idea than the vitalism theory ever was. It is Dr. Coulter
who confuses the two by not admitting what the vitalism theory actually
states. Organicism gives the idea that the universe is like a big,
living organism (much as in the Gaia Hypothesis, only larger in proportion).
It is easy to understand how the naive may confuse this with Holism, which
simply states that an organic whole is greater than the sum of its' individual
parts and all act as an interconnected entity. Some may also wish to blend
this concept into Aristotle's "organic whole" with all of the parts in
subservience to a central purpose. I am confusing nothing, here;
again, I invite you to look up these concepts. After you have, then
tell me where, in any of these ideas, is there a dependence upon an "èlan
vital" energizing living tissue.
> [Coulter...to Koren]... "Again, please
make it clear that vitalism is
> about the organism behaving in a
directed, purposive manner and
> laws of healing derived from observing
the organism in sickness and
> disease."
No it is not; this is
holistic and/or teleological - even Aristotelian, but not vitalism.
The vitalism theory, by its' definition, makes no such claim.
> [Coulter...to Koren]..."Dr. Giordano
should read Divided Legacy first if
> he wishes to discuss this topic in
a clear manner."
No comment.
> [Coulter...to Koren]..." He sounds
like he's trying to show off how well
> read he is, but he's really creating
more confusion, straw man
> arguments and red herrings.
He should try to make his bricks
> without straw."
Cute. I would
imagine that selling the vitalism theory in a new and improved package
would be facilitated by as little critical thinking as possible on the
part of person being sold that bill of goods. I am guilty of being
"well read", Tedd. I was also cursed with an enviable I.Q.; what
of it? It appears evident to me, by his responses, that your Dr.
Coulter has conveniently fabricated a new definition of the Vitalism Theory
and accuses me of "confusing the issue" by my countering of his position
with easily confirmable, historical facts and philosophical definitions.
I would have expected more than an ad hominum diversion and baseless opinions
of my antithesis to that dead theory, coming from a man with his credentials.
As for my "showing off" a knowledge of my fields, it was you, Tedd, who
tasked me. I could've gone the rest of my life without getting involved
in pedantic discussions of this sort. With respect to his biblical
reference to making bricks without straw, my ancestors worked in stone
- no straw was called for - then or now!
> [Coulter...to Koren]..." Note: If
Dr. Giordano, or anyone else is
> interested in obtaining Divided Legacy
Vol. 4 call Koren
> Publications 800-537-3001 or from
foreign (i.e. Italian) lands call
> 215-567-2611."
I think I'll hold off,
for now.
> [Koren]... It is a marvelous book
and will complete anyone's
> understanding of medical philosophy,
vitalism, mechanism and
> chiropractic.
Perhaps; or perhaps
it is an underscoring of a less than intellectually honest personal agenda.
Isn't academia fun?
Now, you may walk away
from this thinking that I'm an ardent mechanist; this is not so.
I tend toward mechanism because I am versed in the principles of science
and understand the ethical implications of holding on to and espousing
intellectually dishonest notions. Mechanism has it faults, which
I have also studied with great attention, and there are many questions
still remaining, but it is a far superior basis of investigation and far
stronger stance to simply stating "élan vital" as the answer for
everything.
I repeat - my arguments
have dealt with the fallacy of the vitalism theory; do not construe this
as an a priori assumption that mechanism is unquestionably valid.
No good scientist would ever make that claim and neither
do I.
Ciao,
Tom
Dr. Thomas V. Giordano
via Taranto 58/A
73100 LECCE (LE) Italia
************************
Note: For further information on Dr.
Coulter, please click on the following link:
http://www.empiricaltherapies.com/coulter.html
© Dr. Thomas
V. Giordano and Chiro.Org. This file may be copied and disseminated
with proper acknowledgements.