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

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Shinigami Eyes, Aug 7, 2010.

  1. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    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.

    MS, Aug 17, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    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:


    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.

    Otis, Aug 18, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    MS, Aug 18, 2010
  4. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    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

    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

    Theshold prevention (by the wise) for the future.
    Otis, Aug 18, 2010
  5. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    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".

    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.

    Otis, Aug 18, 2010
  6. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    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
    MS, Aug 18, 2010
  7. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    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"?

    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

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

    That is the true issue here.

    Prevention (under your control) best,

    Otis, Aug 18, 2010
  8. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Why back out with a new thread? At least try to defend your argument.
    MS, Aug 18, 2010
  9. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    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.


    Could you back up that argument?
    MS, Aug 18, 2010
  10. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Why run away from your argument? Either defend it or admit you're in
    the wrong.
    MS, Aug 19, 2010
  11. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    How so?
    How do you know?
    MS, Aug 19, 2010
  12. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    How do you know?
    Why not use a retinoscope and find out?
    Why assume either?
    MS, Aug 19, 2010
  13. Shinigami Eyes

    Neil Brooks Guest

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

    Maybe is where you should be posting.
    Neil Brooks, Aug 19, 2010
  14. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Nothing wrong with asking questions.

    That's what we do in science isn't it?
    MS, Aug 19, 2010
  15. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Why don't you state exactly what it is that you find absurd?
    Has it been tried?
    That isn't my argument.
    MS, Aug 19, 2010
  16. Shinigami Eyes

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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.
    Neil Brooks, Aug 19, 2010
  17. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    An assumption.
    MS, Aug 19, 2010
  18. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    You've said that several times already.

    Now could you explain exactly what's absurd about it?
    Never said I do. You assumed so.
    MS, Aug 19, 2010
  19. Shinigami Eyes

    Neil Brooks Guest


    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.
    Neil Brooks, Aug 19, 2010
  20. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Of the 2000+ pages of his material which part exactly would you like
    me to analyse?
    MS, Aug 19, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.