Wish I’d Said That

48

The core source of knowledge in science is observation-empiricism.

The core source of understanding in philosophy is assumption and logic-deduction.

The core source of understanding in religion is belief-faith.

-David Koch, D.C.

Be Sociable, Share!

This article has 48 comments

  1. Steve 06/26/2013, 4:53 pm:

    Hey Joe,
    If knowledge means facts and understanding signifies meanings then science without philosophy is merely data. I believe that is my empirical deduction.

    • Claude 06/26/2013, 8:35 pm:

      What is the core source of the art?

      • Claude 06/26/2013, 8:37 pm:

        Better stated: What is the core source of expression in art?

  2. Don 06/27/2013, 1:26 am:

    Why doesn’t the first line read
    The core understanding of … Like all the others?

    The core understanding in science is… Observation?? or something else?

    • Claude Lessard 06/30/2013, 11:15 am:

      Don,

      I wonder about that too. It’s seems to me that whenever someone brings religion into the picture which is NOT a component of chiropractic, people get confused. When we inquire, together without condemnation, into DEEP of chiropractic we must ALWAYS remember that chiropractic is a PHILOSOPHY, a SCIENCE and an ART. Chiropractic is separate and distinct from EVERYTHING ELSE. Chiropractic is INCLUSIVE of EVERYONE in need of LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD.

      • Claude Lessard 06/30/2013, 12:19 pm:

        Joseph,

        I look for that quote of David and I did not find it. In which of his writings is it to be found? Thanks.

        • JoeStrauss 07/01/2013, 11:58 am:

          It was from a talk on a program that we both spoke at in Ohio on 10-19-02.

          • Claude 07/01/2013, 1:57 pm:

            Thank you Joseph.

  3. Steve 06/28/2013, 6:56 pm:

    OK Claude
    I gotta admit you stumped me on this one. Here are three of many Wikis
    :a thought communicated by language, an instruction to execute something that will return a value, verbal and non-verbal behaviour that communicates emotion.
    Put them all together and you get a transmission of information….the core source of expression in art…is intelligence.
    Am I close????

    • Claude 06/28/2013, 10:41 pm:

      Steve,

      No, not even close. It would have to be a method of perception. Above, we have inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning and authority. What is the other method of perception we discussed on this blog last year?

  4. Steve 06/29/2013, 8:17 pm:

    Hang on Claude,
    Are you asking about expression or understanding? Are you asking about the creation of art or the realization? As I understand it, Intelligence and transmission produce expression. Understanding would require impression and interpretation.
    To express art one must have intelligence.
    To understand art one must first experience it.
    Were you looking for the core source of understanding art?

  5. Claude Lessard 06/30/2013, 3:07 am:

    Steve,

    It requires intelligence to acquire knowledge. It requires intelligence to understand. Intelligence is not a method of perception. Intelligence is that which makes perception possible. The quote of Koch is about different methods of perceptions. Science = Observation-empiricism. Philosophy = assumption and logic-deduction. Religion = beliefs-faith.
    Those are methods of perception. The question is: Art = which method of perception?

    • Steve 07/01/2013, 2:15 pm:

      Sorry Claude,
      I’m in the weeds here. Not sure what you’re looking for. Anybody else have an idea? How ’bout helpin a brother out, any clues?

      • Don 07/01/2013, 5:15 pm:

        Steve,
        I have been there before. Lol!
        I would say the methods of perception are empiricism/induction, logic/deduction, and faith. I assume there are others but not sure of the names.

      • JoeStrauss 07/01/2013, 8:34 pm:

        Steve, I think I’m right next to you (in the weeds).

    • Michael Duncan 07/01/2013, 5:34 pm:

      I have read this question a dozen times now thinking about it and I keep coming back to this thought. Not sure if it is correct, but it is all I can think of at the moment.

      Would/Is “Art” the “expression” of the perception? And therefore, all 3 could lead to “Art”, no?

      Things may vary depending upon HOW we “perceive”, but it still seems it would seem to then dictate or shape the way your “Art” occurs because of the expression of said Intelligence.

      • Claude Lessard 07/01/2013, 6:57 pm:

        Michael,

        Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed music at the age of 5 that NEVER existed before and that was completely NEW. Which method of perception was Mozart using to express his art?

        • JoeStrauss 07/01/2013, 8:55 pm:

          Claude, Mozart used 8 notes that existed long before he was born, just as Palmer used 33 principles that were around long before him. Mozart’s genius was in his ability to rearrange those 8 notes, Palmer’s in his ability to put those principles in a deductive arrangement. Good analogy. I think both, as Michael suggested, used all three methods of perception to express their respective art forms.

      • JoeStrauss 07/01/2013, 8:43 pm:

        Michael, I would agree that art is the expression of our perception. In this example, I believe the art would be traditional/mixing chiropractic if it was based on empiricism , OSC if it was based upon deduction and faith healing if based solely upon belief. But there is, IMO, a little bit of all 3 in the application of our art.

        • Michael Duncan 07/02/2013, 3:16 am:

          Joe, I didn’t elaborate on those points of “which type of chiropractic” or any profession for that matter, but what I was thinking it. Thanks!

  6. Claude 07/01/2013, 2:16 pm:

    Joseph,

    Is this quote REALLY what David said? What was the context in which it was said? It seems to me that the quote needs some refinements the way that you stated it in your opening blog. Don’t you think?

    • JoeStrauss 07/01/2013, 8:33 pm:

      Claude, the context as I recall (remember this was 11 years ago and sometimes I can’t remember what I was told 11 minutes ago.) was that science, philosophy and religion all have different methods of perception. Only deduction relates to our chiropractic philosophy was his point, as I remember. I’m not sure it is appropriate to “refine” someone else’s quote so I just write them as I remember them and let others interpret/make their sense of them. If I misquoted David, I apologize to him…and everyone else.

  7. Steve 07/01/2013, 7:53 pm:

    Hey Claude,
    Herein lies the problem for me. Art is both a perception and an expression, depending on whether you are giving or receiving. In our profession Art is something we do, however, it is perceived by the PM. In many cases the effect of receiving the Art is imperceptible (the brick in the ocean). I will stick my neck out and guess again. The patient perceives through experience, observation – empiricism.

    • Michael Duncan 07/02/2013, 3:20 am:

      Steve, why wouldn’t/couldn’t the patient perceive through all 3? Especiallg when they come into our offices “biased” and pre-influenced by other things?

  8. Claude 07/01/2013, 9:09 pm:

    Steve,

    Science is dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. Science uses observation-empiricism as it’s major methods of perception. –

    Philosophy is dedicated to the pursuit of understanding. Philosophy uses assumption and logic-deduction as its major methods of perception. –

    Art is dedicated to the pursuit of creative expression. Art also has to have its major methods of perception. Albert Einstein made reference to them many times in his comments. BJ referred to it WHEN he was asked by a student in the one of the hall of Palmer College: “HOW do you know?” I’m sure you could locate the reference I’m talking about! 😉 –

    – How did Mozart perceive music and compose at the age of 5 WITHOUT any musical instrument to “sound” the minuet? He wrote the music on paper and there it was… WITHOUT any need of correction! Which major methods of perception did Mozart use for his creative EXPRESSION? It’s the same for you, I bet you introduce an adjustic thrust unique to you, don’t you? I’m going to ask you the same question that was asked of BJ: “HOW do you know?”

    • Steve 07/01/2013, 10:08 pm:

      Hey Claude,
      BJ: Innate told me.
      Steve: it just felt right
      Claude: no Steve you’re still missing the point!

      • Claude 07/01/2013, 10:35 pm:

        Steve,

        BJ’s answer to the question: “HOW do you know?”, while taking his stokey out of his mouth, was: “YOU’ll know!” –

        – Since you said your answer was: “it just felt right”… Let me ask you; WHICH method of perception do you use WHEN you say: “it just felt right”? Observation-empiricism or assumption and logic-deduction or belief-faith, or WHAT? In other words, HOW do you perceive that feeling?

  9. Claude Lessard 07/02/2013, 11:29 am:

    Michael,

    So, there is at least a fourth method of perception, whatever name it has, right? Mozart re-arranging those eight notes and Palmer’s ability to put the 33 principles in a deductive arrangement must have used this method as well, otherwise, we would all do that. Since art as you say is an expression of perception, our art also uses that fourth method of perception as well, otherwise it would not be art. –

    – Therefore as we continue to inquire, together without condemnation, we can reasonably deduce that the ENUNCIATION of the major premise required that Palmer used as methods of perception, observation-empiricism. Then Palmer used assumption and made it the start point of chiropractic and vested it with authority. Then, through intuition Palmer perceived the possibility of arrangement and used logic-deduction and deduced the 32 subsequent principles. So, as was mentioned above, a bit of the FOUR methods are used to practice the art of chiropractic. –

    – Art is dedicated to the pursuit of creative expression. Art uses intuition as its major method of perception. –

    – In chiropractic, logic-deduction is the method we used most often along with the authority of the major premise. Observation-empiricism and intuition are secondary most of the time. –

    – Together without condemnation, we can reasonably deduce tha,t in chiropractic, ALL four methods of perception are employed in some form or other. The four methods of perception are: –

    – 1- Observation-empiricism –

    – 2 – Authority –

    – 3 – Logic-deduction –

    – 4 – Intuition

    • JoeStrauss 07/02/2013, 1:45 pm:

      Claude, does everyone have this 4th method of perception-intuition? Do you think this is the same as BJ’s “thot flashes?” Could it be that what you call intuition is just a combination of the other 3 methods and /or a product of the matter(like instinct)?

      • Claude 07/02/2013, 3:17 pm:

        Joseph,

        I have long asked myself that great question. There are some atheist WHO are intuitive. One does not need to believe in a metaphysical authority in order to perceive intuitively. WHEN i OBSERVE a the work of a person like Stephen Hawking, i lean toward intuition to be as BJ called “thot flashes”. Yet it seems that “thot flashes” are a product of a well organized “mind” which is the activity matter. Therefore, in the case of Hawking, his “mind”, which is the activity of his matter, seems to be comprised of “compromised” matter with his ALS (amyotropic lateral sclerosis) and his intuitive quantum and gravitational theories point beyond the matter. We might be dealing with intuition to be both immaterial and material and we won’t be able to fully understand it. Pretty much like intelligence and force. –

        – So, WHERE does that leave us? Well… since we are treading on some metaphysical grounds, it is my opinion that the acceptance of intuition as a valid method of perception will not compromise the chiropractic objective.

        • Michael Duncan 07/02/2013, 4:17 pm:

          Claude,

          Based on what both you and Joe mentioned regarding B.J.’s “thot flashes” and the chiropractic objective, do either of you think that this already falls into the realm of part of the difference between OSC/OC and TSC and the “personification” of thot flashes as coming from Innate?

          Claude, you mention that “intuition” or whatever else one may choose to call it can be a valid method of perception without compromising the chiropractic objective. I think I could agree that it MAY not compromise the chiropractic objective as long as it could be looked, referenced, used, termed, etc. as separate. But that is part of the problem as I mentioned above that has plagued this profession for years, which is personifying so much as coming from Innate.

          Thots or Thot Flashes Anyone?

          • Claude Lessard 07/02/2013, 5:53 pm:

            Michael,

            Universal intelligence is the LAW of organization that maintains matter in existence. Innate intelligence is the LAW of life that maintains the matter of a “living thing” in ACTIVE organization. –

            – Having said that, it is WHO some people choose to BE, WHO choose to personify innate intelligence. It seems that some people cannot deal with abstract metaphysical concepts. May be that’s WHY in BJ’s time, BJ personify innate intelligence… He even called some portion of cycles the “wife”… try figure. Perhaps BJ thought that people would relate better to “personification”? Perhaps BJ was relating better to “personification”? We’ll never really know. –

            – Be it as it may, I understand your point and it is well taken. In the mean time, everyone is FREE to choose WHO they choose to BE. Chiropractic in the hands of “immature” people can morph into a masquerade taking on many forms. Even though chiropractic is separate and distinct from EVERYTHING else and is INCLUSIVE of EVERYONE, we must admit that chiropractic is subjected to the whims and fancies of people. That’s call freewill. –

            – Therefore, in order to avoid faulty reasoning, it is me WHO choose to assume and accept the major premise as the start point of chiropractic philosophy. Then, it is me WHO choose to perceive chiropractic with rational logic and deductive reasoning. Then, it is me WHO choose to educe this rational logic from practice members. 😉

          • JoeStrauss 07/03/2013, 10:09 am:

            “do either of you think that this already falls into the realm of part of the difference between OSC/OC and TSC and the “personification” of thot flashes as coming from Innate?” I cannot answer for Claude (well, actually I could but that would not be fair). I would say yes that is a difference between OSC and TSC. Thanks Michael, you have now given TSCors one more reason to dislike me!

        • JoeStrauss 07/03/2013, 11:46 am:

          Claude, where in the Triune of Life is this4th method o perception . Is it a part of intelligence, part of the matter or an expression of the force or a combination o all three?

          • Claude 07/03/2013, 1:58 pm:

            Joseph,

            It has to be coming from all three. Genes (matter) fire on and off according to the instructive information (force) created by universal intelligence and adapted by innate intelligence (intelligence). –

            – I am fine with the fact that I don’t know the reason WHY someone may be right without knowing the reason. There might be a logical explanation that I can’t perceive at a certain time and I am fine with that. I came to that level of acceptance from years of deep reflection and contemplation. I have gotten much help from the BLUE books and from people like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein. –

            – It is Einstein WHO chose to be WHO he chose to be and he said:
            “When I examine myself and my method of thought, I come close to the conclusion that the gift of imagination has meant more to me that any talent for absorbing knowledge. All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge. I believe in intuition and imagination… At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason. Imagination is more important than knowledge.” (Calaprice 2000, 22, 287, 10). –

            – So, Joseph, for Einstein, insight did not come from logic or mathematics. It came as it does artists, from intuition and imagination. Einstein said further: “If what is seen and experienced is portrayed in the language of logic, then it is science. If it is communicated through forms whose constructions are not accessible to the conscious mind but are recognized intuitively, then it is art”. (Calaprice 2000, 271). –

            – Einstein himself worked intuitively and expressed himself with rational logic. That WHY he said that great scientists are also artists. Stephen Hawking says that black holes emit radiation. HOW did he get “see” that insight? Intuition and imagination are the only explanation. I don’t know the reason WHY and I am fine with that. –

            – This begs the question: –

            – The 33 principles, “which are portrayed in the language of logic” (as Einstein stated above), could it be that the major premise is part of our science (knowledge) and the subsequent 32 principles are part of our philosophy (understanding) and that our art (expression of perception) is creatively expressed in LACVS which cannot be logically proven as it deals with the metaphysical mental impulse within chiropractic philosophy?

          • JoeStrauss 07/04/2013, 12:37 pm:

            Claude, in answer to your only question in the above comment. I think that the “metaphysical mental impulse” can only be proven by logical deduction. As a metaphysical construct it sure cannot be proven empirically. Are you positing that we and/ or B.J. LACVS by intuition and that the MP comes about by empiricism “science (knowledge)?” My understanding has always been that Prin#1 comes from inductive reasoning, the other 32 by deductive reasoning unless of course you start with a theistic base, then all 33 are deductions. Good discussion and have a wonderful 4th.

  10. Michael Duncan 07/02/2013, 10:32 pm:

    Claude,

    Yes, I agree with you 100%. And that is exactly what I was getting at.

    • Claude Lessard 07/03/2013, 10:33 am:

      Joseph,

      The difference between OSC and TSC is the fact that OSC deals with tradition and TSC deals with traditionalism. Let me define the terms: –

      – CHIROPRACTIC TRADITION: The form of values of the thirty three principles as authority applied to past AND current accurate information. –

      – CHIROPRACTIC TRADITIONALISM: The form of values of the thirty three principles applied ONLY to past information. It is an ideology derived from cultural belief, habits, routine, remnant of the past. –

      – Yes, OSC understand universal intelligence and innate intelligence as LAWS of organization and active organization. TSC understand universal intelligence and innate intelligence as personifications organizing matter. Hence, the CAUSE of the “rift” within the profession. Correct the CAUSE and the “rift” disappear. –

      – AMAZING ISN’T IT? –

      – Let us carry on. ADIO.

      • Claude Lessard 07/03/2013, 11:19 am:

        … in other words, the distinction is that OC honors the tradition of our predecessors by refining the philosophy of chiropractic as NEW information are discovered… this keep the philosophy vitalistic. TSC promote the ways of our predecessors by personifying innate as it was done before. It’s like “cutting the ends of the roast to fit the pot”… this keeps the philosophy static. It interferes with the FLOW of instructive information of the philosophy. –

        -This blog is addressing the CAUSE by clarifying the deductive reasoning behind the principles of chiropractic.

      • JoeStrauss 07/03/2013, 3:42 pm:

        Claude, how do you correct a rift that is based upon metaphysical constructs? PS. I’m not sure I accept your definitions of tradition and traditionalism.

        • Claude Lessard 07/03/2013, 6:30 pm:

          Joseph,

          The rift is about law vs “personification”.

          – I welcome your definition of both terms. 😉

          • JoeStrauss 07/04/2013, 11:59 am:

            Claude, which terms law and personification or tradition and traditionalism??

  11. Claude 07/03/2013, 8:51 pm:

    … or their refinements! 😉

  12. Claude 07/04/2013, 2:50 pm:

    Joseph,

    – Let us inquire further, together without condemnation, into intuition as method of perception. –

    – We can see that it is OBSERVATION of universal ORGANIZATION that led to the ASSUMPTION of the major premise through a method of perception. –

    – I am NOT saying “that we and/ or B.J. LACVS by intuition”. The great achievements of DD Palmer, Newton, Marconi, Edison, Einstein, Joule, Hawking, first came from “seeing” what others did not “see”. From there, came theories, theorems, hypothesis and facts. –

    – Tell me Joseph, WHEN you use AMP as your technique of choice are you not perceiving (feeling , interpreting, analyzing the constant motion at a certain time of a vertebra) VS? Then are you not expressing an adjustic thrust based on your perception of that VS? If you are and ONLY if you are, I can reasonably deduce that your art (expression of perception) is creatively expressed, by YOU as the artist, in LACVS which cannot be logically proven as it deals with the metaphysical mental impulse within chiropractic philosophy. Of course it is the same for ALL of us WHO choose to use AMP as our technique of choice since VS is NOT static. –

    – Have you ever been in a position WHERE you checked the spine of a practice member and did NOT provide an adjustic thrust? If so, WHY did you NOT? The spine of that PM was “clear” one may say… HOW does one determine that? Obviously, one did NOT perceive the presence of VS at that particular time in that particular spine and since there was no perception to express, no adjustic thrust was provided. –

    – It is also true, “that the “metaphysical mental impulse” can only be proven by logical deduction. As a metaphysical construct it sure cannot be proven empirically”. –

    – 7 questions for ALL :

    1- NOW, and I mean right now, WHEN we, together without condemnation, OBSERVE universal organization, can we DEDUCE from the OBSERVERS of that OBSERVATION that “A universal intelligence is in all matter continually gives to it all of its properties and actions thus maintaining it in existence”? –

    2- NOW, and I mean right now, WHEN we, together without condemnation, OBSERVE universal organization, can we INDUCE from that universal organization that “A universal intelligence is in all matter continually gives to it all of its properties and actions thus maintaining it in existence”? –

    3- NOW, and I mean right now, WHEN we, together without condemnation, OBSERVE universal organization, can we BELIEVE from that OBSERVATION that “A universal intelligence is in all matter continually gives to it all of its properties and actions thus maintaining it in existence”? –

    4- NOW, and I mean right now, WHEN we, together without condemnation, OBSERVE universal organization, can we INTUIT (imagine, sense, perceive, inspire) from that activity that “A universal intelligence is in all matter continually gives to it all of its properties and actions thus maintaining it in existence”? –

    5- NOW and I mean right now, WHEN we, together without condemnation, OBSERVE universal organization, can we PROVE that “A universal intelligence is in all matter continually gives to it all of its properties and actions thus maintaining it in existence”? –

    6- NOW and I mean right now, WHEN we, together without condemnation, OBSERVE universal organization, can we DISPROVE “A universal intelligence is in all matter continually gives to it all of its properties and actions thus maintaining it in existence”? –

    7- NOW and I mean right now, WHEN we, together without condemnation, OBSERVE universal organization, WHO is the who, WHO is choosing to OBSERVE and CONCLUDE or NOT CONCLUDE “A universal intelligence is in all matter continually gives to it all of its properties and actions thus maintaining it in existence”? –

    • JoeStrauss 07/05/2013, 5:50 pm:

      Claude, “seeing what others do not see’ is not a matter of intuition. As an aspect of observation it is part of empiricism, just more highly developed in some than in others. It’s like instant replay, it gives us more accurate (empirical)observation abilities.
      With regard to AMP, my tactile skills are a function of empiricism. AMP uses both empiricism and deduction, but I would say that no intuitive ability is involved. AMP deals with the physical aspects of LACVS not the metaphysical ones. The failure to perceive a VS was not intuitive. It was strictly physical and limited by my physical abilities. Since I am one of “ALL”, I will give my answers to the “7”:
      1. No, we do not deduce from the observers, we accept their authority, that’s the 3rd method of perception-faith or authority.
      2. We can conclude it by induction …what is true for the parts is true for the whole, or by accepting the authority (faith in) of B.J.
      3. Sure that’s called faith in the presence of evidence as opposed to faith in the absence of evidence.
      4. Sure that’s called faith in spite of the evidence. That’s how Darwinism/evolution is believedseeing universal intelligence, I would say no. For those who are satisfied with an overwhelming inductive demonstration, I would say yes. For those who have a belief in God ffaith, I would say yes.
      6. You can never disprove something that is not physical by physical methods.
      7. I would say the guy playing first, the 1st baseman. (with apologies to Abbot and Costello.)

  13. Claude Lessard 07/04/2013, 5:56 pm:

    Joseph,

    I welcome your refinements of my definition of tradition and traditionalism or your definition of those terms. 😉

  14. Claude Lessard 07/05/2013, 9:42 pm:

    Joseph,

    I accept your “highly developed observation as part of empiricism” for those WHO “see” WHAT others don’t. I have not problem with that. Wouldn’t your instant replay example have something to do with memory which is NOT a method of perception? –

    – How does highly developed observation as part of empiricism work in the case of a blind person from birth or better yet, in Helen Keller’s situation of being deaf, blind and mute? –

    – Could a person, self-reflect and observe the universe within and “see” organization at that level?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *