After a heated discussion with my Mom, I cannot convince her that chiropractic doctors are not real doctors and that most of it is a pseudoscience. Do you have any general information or resources you could send me so I can show her? Only if you have time, of course!
Since I've been putting much of what would normally be blogging time into fielding email questions, I might as well make my responses serve double-duty. Here was my response:
If it helps, I understand your situation. As you know, I've been in a similar situation with many close friends and relatives.
I actually used to have chiropractic treatments regularly, and several members of my family still swear by them. My chiropractor was a very nice gentleman, and although I am now convinced that the treatments that I received were bogus (and there is evidence to suggest that he actually put me at greater risk of suffering a stroke), I have no reason to believe that he was consciously committing fraud.
Simon Singh, a British journalist for The Guardian, was sued last year by the British Chiropractic Association for libel, after he called their treatments "bogus". You can find his article, with citations added, here. It's a short read, but quite good. As Professor Frank Frizelle quipped, "Let's hear your evidence not your legal muscle."
[Edit: Apparently that link no longer works. However, since Singh won the libel case, the Guardian reinstated the original article, so you can read that instead.]
Skeptoid is also a very good resource. Brian Dunning is lively, and he cites his articles/podcasts well. In fact, this transcript might make an excellent starting point, as it gives a good overview of the subject.
Finally, Quackwatch is always a good resource when looking into medical claims. A quick search of "chiropractic" turns up nearly 200 articles.
The unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely that any amount of evidence will convince a person who isn't interested in the evidence, and it's likely that most people won't be. As Jonathan Swift is reputed to have said, "You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place." If your main goal is convincing someone, it's often best not to get into a direct confrontation, as this will frequently just put them on the defensive and force them to rationalise away any evidence that you care to present. If you want to avoid conflict, it's often best to just present the evidence a little bit at a time, and not push the other person too hard. If they're honestly interested in figuring out what is true (and this won't be everyone), then they'll eventually start to pay attention, and even ask questions.
To be fair, I don't always follow my own advice, here. I can be a rather reckless conversationalist at times. There are things that I'm good at, but being careful or politically expedient isn't always one of those things. But depending on what you want, framing the issue can be very important.
Honestly and openly admitting the edges of your own expertise can go a long way, as well. There's never any harm in looking things up! (But it is important to be sure that you're not just looking for confirmatory evidence, as well; make sure that you're looking somewhere reputable!)
My wife is calling for me to come to bed, so I'll have to leave it there. Best of luck!
PS: Chiropractic doctors are "real doctors", if by "real" you mean that they are allowed to put "Dr." in front of their name. But so are dentists. They are most emphatically not medical doctors or physicians. They do not attend medical school. It's sometimes important to clarify what you mean, here.