Abstract
Chiropractic rhetoric must advance beyond vitalists attacking subluxation deniers, and deniers holding firm to eminence over evidence. I am calling for clear and strong debate in which the issues and their evidence are examined in the manner of traditional philosophical debate.
The purpose of this paper is to present two behaviours that will each change the profession and discipline’s narrative about subluxation, scilicet: (i) that an active, intellectual discussion occur and (ii) that it be published in any author’s preferred journal of record, indexed by the Chiropractic Library Collaboration with terms that will connect the papers, and be open access for all.
To facilitate this change I present a palette of three terms with exposition to show how we can build our rhetoric into constructive argument from either a realist, a post-realist, or an absurdist view-point.
For the reason the post-realist and absurdist’s positions are opinion, have not been thought-through, and show no appreciation of the paradox that they have no evidence at all supportive of that opinion, they should cease gaslighting the realists and anyone who opposes their position.
Chiropractic realism is the conventional position of the majority of the profession and of the discipline. The realists quite rightly demand to see and discuss the evidence, if any, held by the post-realists for their position.