Spinology and Theology


The reason Spinology can stay away from theological concepts is that it begins further down the “deductive line”. This avoids a real philosophical issue that Stephenson and  B.J. address, where the Major Premise comes from. That’s the Spinologist’s  prerogative. The spinologist never tells you where he gets his Major Premise. It seems that Spinology avoids theological concepts in establishing the Major Premise. Again, that’s their prerogative and that is fine (although it does create an unexplained gap at the beginning of their philosophy). Stephenson and B.J.used a theological concept (equating universal intelligence with God). But if you are going to use a theological concept, you must use it correctly. In my opinion, they did not. Reggie used inductive reasoning in explaining the Major Premise when he taught chiropractic philosophy but apparently (from what I have read and heard)  just avoided developing the concept when he taught Spinology.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 1 comment

  1. Claude Lessard 01/21/2014, 1:39 am:


    Do you think that COTB developed the concept of universal intelligence sufficiently enough to bridge the gap between the origin of the major premise (which comes from observation and inductive reasoning) and the following 32 principles?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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