Could someone with free access to JAMA get me these two articles? x

That's the whole point.

Let's quote from the study:

[...]
The memorized Snellen test card aroused much scepticism. Its value
for testing the vision was questioned by most teachers. To settle the
matter, Miss Blake had the vision of 1.500 pupils tested, January,
1912, with a memorized Snellen card by the teachers. Soon afterward,
the vision of the same 1.500 pupils was tested with an unfamiliar
Snellen card. The tabulated records of both tests were sent at his
request to Gustave Straubemüller, associate superintendent, with the
following conclusion: "The figures submitted are interesting and it
would seem as though Doctor Bates had, to a certain extent, proved his
point." The test was repeated in June, 1913, and the memorized
Snellen card was again found satisfactory for testing the vision.
Objective tests were conclusive, and demonstrated the interesting fact
that school children did not deceive themselves or others, when their
vision was tested with a memorized Snellen card. When a pupil said he
was reading the memorized Snellen card with normal vision, the
retinoscope used at the same time, indicated no manifest error of
refraction; the eye was adjusted for normal vision.

[...]

 

Dear MS,

Subject: Stick with what Bates did -- NOT WHAT HE SAID.

Here are the results. Visual Acuity chage from 20/100 to nonral in
about nine months.

There was one objection -- and is that the people did NOT meaure their
refractive STATE.

In a future study, with Engineer/Scientists, I think you would get
objective results -- if you involve the Engineer in making these
objective measuremts of the refractive STATE of the eye.

I do this checking myself.


Public School No. 46, W. A. Boylan, principal.
E. 6A., J. Hiesel. T., 27
D., 27
I., 27
N., 25
W., 0
February, 1913. April, 1913. June, 1913.
R. L. R. L. R. L.
John D. ...... 20/100 20/50 20/50 20/40 20/20 20/20
Sanford G. ... 20/50 27/70 20/30 20/40 20/15 20/20


Success favors the prepared mind. These" kids" were not prepared, but
just shown the Snellen.

Greater preparation and science BEFORE the start of the study (see the
blue-tint paradigm by C. Wildsoet), and I think systmatic Snellen
clearing could be a achieved.

But that type of succes DOES TAKE MOTIVATION.

Here is Bates conclusion:
++++++

CONCLUSIONS.


1. All investigators, I believe, have published that previous efforts
to lessen defective vision or prevent myopia in schools have failed.

2. One hundred and twenty one teachers in the schools of New York city
have lessened appreciably the number of pupils with defective vision.
Note in the accompanying records that over 1000 pupils with defective
sight obtained normal vision in both eyes.

3. Thirty-two teachers prevented the vision of all their pupils from
becoming worse.

4. Myopia was prevented by teachers.

+++++++

A better definition of "success' shold be made.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

 

Dear MS,

Subject: The Bias of a person who think he is a "God" in his office.

There are ODs and MDS who support the concept of PREVENTION at the
threshold.

But the general idea is that PREVENTION is the SECOND-OPINION.

When one side (or the other) must resort to "name calling" -- you
don't have a rational discussion of SCIENCE and ENGINEERING.

Mike Tyner spent 4 years of his life and $100,000, to sit in his
office and impress the public with a minus or plus lens.

Do you think you are going to change Mike's mind with a rational
discussion of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye?

Let us try to REDUCE this "insult" business as much as possible.

It is the reacton of a man who is losing a sciantific analysis and
argument.

Theshold prevention (by the wise) for the future.

 

Dear MS,

It is Mikes desire to "got you off the subject" of the natural eye's
proven behavior. His life-time "work" depends on getting you "off
prevention". Here is a further analysis of Mike's type of "arugment".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring


The issue still remains that Bate's 1913 study showed some early
SUCCESS. It remains for the future to "over-come" these "self
defense" arguments -- to misslead and distract.

PREVENTION (avoiding entry into a nagative STATE for the natural eye)
remains an open-questoin.

Enjoy,

 

Wikipedia states:

"Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of
argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its
implications logically to an absurd consequence.[1]"

Now take me through each step in your argument to show you've done
that.

 

Dear MS,

Subject: Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern
definition (from Plato), a sophism is a specious argument used for
deceiving someone. In

When are you going to stop "beating a dead horse"?

The minus is VERY EASY to use.

It impresses the public -- with "no argument".

I have a trial-lens kit -- and use of the minus on the "ignorant" is
what Mike is all about.

You think your "arguments" are going to "change his mind"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism

I do not argue with MIke Tyner -- IN HIS OFFICE.

I have my own trial lens kit, and confirm my refractive STATE (and
Snellen) myself.

If I have a MEDICAL issue, I will go to a MEDICALLY-QUALIFIED PERSON.
Mike is not that person.

I has presented an optometrist to you that agrees that PREVENTION (not
recovery) is possible.

The only issue is to organize a PREVENTIVE PROGRAM WITH PEOPLE WHO
NEED IT THE MOST -- and who will make these critical measurements
UNDER THEIR CONTROL.

That would confirm "results" ON AN ENGINEERING/SCIENTIFIC LEVEL.

That is the true issue here.

Prevention (under your control) best,

 

Why back out with a new thread? At least try to defend your argument.

 

My argument is that the above argument is an example of appeal to
ridicule. Your argument is that your argument is an example of
reductio ad absurdum.

Yeh?

Could you back up that argument?

 

Why run away from your argument? Either defend it or admit you're in
the wrong.

 

How so?

How do you know?

 

How do you know?

Why not use a retinoscope and find out?

Why assume either?

 

Just like Otis ... you're long on rhetoric, but woefully (entirely)
short on evidence.

Maybe faith.vision is where you should be posting.

 

Nothing wrong with asking questions.

That's what we do in science isn't it?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Why don't you state exactly what it is that you find absurd?

Has it been tried?

That isn't my argument.

 

You neither ask questions nor question.

You take Bates on faith, and expect others to, as well, and then act
surprised when a science-based newsgroup ... doesn't.

I'm not quite sure WHAT you do in 7th grade science class. I know all
about the Scientific Method, though.

You should look into it.

You're as much of an idiot as Otis. To your credit, though, you seem
more sane and less mendacious.

Low bars to clear, though.

 

An assumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

You've said that several times already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Now could you explain exactly what's absurd about it?

Never said I do. You assumed so.

 

Odd.

I've yet to see YOU do anything that even SLIGHTLY resembles a
critical analysis of his publications, or an even slightly objective
evaluation of his claimed "results."

You just vomit his writing, verbatim.

So ... no Straw Man, there. Just fact. I like facts.

 

Of the 2000+ pages of his material which part exactly would you like
me to analyse?