The debate over the metaphysical elements of Palmer's theories, and in
chiropractic generally, has been a long and frequently bitter one. Th
is article attempts to show the illogicality of both sides of the deba
te by reviewing the role of metaphysics in science and the discussions
of metaphysics in philosophy. Within philosophy, metaphysics have bee
n viewed, at least by those who do not object to them outright, as heu
ristic devices, which, although they cannot be subjected to either con
firmation or refutation (that is, we cannot know if they are true or f
alse), can be subjected to rational criticism. Furthermore, the articl
e suggests that a critical confrontation with Palmer's metaphysical co
nstructs should begin with a critique of vitalism, the philosophical s
ource of these constructs (innate and universal intelligence).