The Cullen-Snyder Framework (v.1.0) Application #006 – “Cote et al. 2020 and Murphy et al. 2008”

here, application of the CSF to chiropractic-centered articles that are critical of the area due to epistemic conflation/pseudoscience aspects:

001. the two articles full citations [as generated by PubMed in APA format]:

001.a. "Cote et al. 2020" is:

Côté, P., Bussières, A., Cassidy, J. D., Hartvigsen, J., Kawchuk, G. N., Leboeuf-Yde, C., Mior, S., Schneider, M., & 140 signatories# call for an end to pseudoscientific claims on the effect of chiropractic care on immune function (2020). A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, 28(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00312-x

001.b. "Murphy et al. 2008" is:

Murphy, D. R., Schneider, M. J., Seaman, D. R., Perle, S. M., & Nelson, C. F. (2008). How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry. Chiropractic & Osteopathy, 16, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-16-10

002. the task to Perplexity:

“Can you compare and contrast how the two attached pdf articles comport with the attached docx framework?”

003. the report/answer:

“Both attached PDF articles — Côté et al. (2020) and Murphy et al. (2008) — offer critical perspectives on pseudoscientific claims and professional legitimacy in healthcare fields, and can be directly compared and contrasted against the evaluative principles of the Cullen-Snyder Framework provided in the DOCX attachment.

Framework Alignment and Relevance

The Cullen-Snyder Framework synthesizes epistemic analysis (Cullen’s focus on scientific versus pseudoscientific claims) with political philosophy (Snyder’s emphasis on freedom as access to factual information and institutional supports). Its main analytical components are:

• Epistemic Profile: Emphasizes distinguishing science-based from pseudoscientific claims through indexes like the Science Camouflage Index and scores for institutional legitimacy.

• Freedom Impact Matrix: Evaluates effects on freedom dimensions—sovereignty, unpredictability, mobility, factuality, and solidarity—by mapping how misrepresented knowledge or institutional deficiencies can erode societal freedom.

Côté et al. (2020): Epistemic Critique & Public Protection

This article most closely aligns with the framework’s "epistemic profile" component. Côté et al. denounce pseudoscientific claims made by segments of the chiropractic profession, specifically the assertion that spinal adjustments boost immunity against COVID-19. Their critique systematically applies warning signs of pseudoscience, such as reliance on anecdotal evidence, unconnected basic science studies, and extraordinary claims without robust evidence. They call for institutional and regulatory action to defend factuality and protect freedom, which parallels the framework’s view that epistemic misrepresentation threatens both scientific integrity and human liberty.

• Epistemic Profile: Strongly aligned; Côté et al. expose science camouflage (false claims dressed as science) and stress the necessity for factuality and evidence. 

• Freedom Impact: Closely linked through their advocacy for regulatory protection of public health and liberty via access to truth, echoing Snyder’s insistence that factuality is a prerequisite for freedom.

Murphy et al. (2008): Institutional Legitimacy & Professional Reform

Murphy et al. take a broader sociological and institutional approach, critiquing chiropractic’s failure to attain cultural authority due to mixing science with pseudoscience and insufficient professional reform. They contrast chiropractic with podiatry, noting podiatry’s successful integration into mainstream healthcare, owing to public health commitment, academic standards, and clear professional identity.

• Epistemic Profile: Murphy et al. highlight epistemic conflation within chiropractic and recommend adopting scientific rigor and abandoning untestable dogmas. 

• Institutional Legitimacy: They emphasize the importance of integration into university systems, research, residency training, and regulatory accountability—resonating directly with the framework’s focus on institutional legitimacy scores and safeguards against pseudoscientific erosion. 

• Freedom Impact: Their recommendations to orient chiropractic practice toward evidence-based, socially responsive care speak to Snyder’s conception of freedom as active construction, supported by accurate information and robust institutions.

Comparison Table

Framework Component	Côté et al. (2020)	Murphy et al. (2008)
Epistemic Profile	Critiques pseudoscience; demands factuality; exposes science camouflage	Critiques epistemic conflation; urges scientific standards over dogma
Institutional Legitimacy	Calls for regulatory action against pseudoscientific claims	Advocates integration, research, and professionalism
Freedom Impact	Links misinformation to threats against liberty and public health	Argues that scientific integrity is essential for professional—and societal—freedom
Implementation Protocols	Endorses strong public health alignment and factuality in patient care	Proposes institutional reform, regulatory standards, and evidence-based education

Contrast

• Both articles: Critique pseudoscience, urge factuality, and highlight institutional responsibilities, closely comporting with the Cullen-Snyder Framework. 

• Côté et al. (2020): Is more urgent and specific in denouncing false claims related to COVID-19, focusing on the immediate dangers to public health and liberty from misinformation. 

• Murphy et al. (2008): Is more structural, analyzing historical and systemic shortcomings and presenting reform solutions based on another profession’s successes.

Both articles support and illustrate the Cullen-Snyder Framework’s core thesis: that healthcare practices must be continuously evaluated for both scientific integrity and their impact on freedom, and that pseudoscientific infiltration threatens both dimensions.”

An interesting use of the CSF on evaluative material.