New groups SCI.MED.VISION.VISION and SCI.MED.VISION.EYE

Dear All

Since the science of eye care is a different field
(optometry/ophthalmology) to the science of vision (Visual Science,
Visual psychology and perception) and clearly involves different
disciplines entirely, it makes sense that eye care experts trained in
the eye side of vision who prefer to focus on the eye side of vision
can do so without being embarrassed or abused by those who want to
discuss the philosophical and psychological side of human vision.

Similarly those wanting to discuss and learn about the more esoteric
aspects of human vision should be able to do so without being asked to
leave a vision science group because its too psychological and has
nothing to do with human vision.

It makes sense therefore to create two separate groups.

Those who wish to discuss only the eye and its optics or its muscles or
its health or prescribing glasses as practicised by optometrists
opticians and ophthalmologists could do so on SCI.MED.VISION.EYES

Those who wish to discuss the nature of vision, the way we see and how
we see from the point of view as eye as sense organ and point of view
as brain as interpreting or perceiving organ could do so on
SCI.MED.VISION.VISION.

All current members who are part of SCI.MED.VISION could remain in the
new group but abuse in either the VISION.EYE group or VISION.VISION
group could be more clearly identified. And each group would have a
better chance of keeping a group identity which did not so obviously
conflict as is happening at the moment where psychology of vision is
clearly creating a clash of cultures and disciplines.

At the moment there appear to be no experts contributing who are
formerly trained visual scientists and no incentive for any such person
to join since the expert emphasis is primarily on eye care and away
from visual science.

I have written to Google help desk to suggest this. Currently there is
a software method that prevents any Google vision group competing with
SCI.MED.VISION which is forcing all Goggle group vision participants
into the same arena.

Andrew

 

Those who wish to discuss the nature of vision, the way we see and how

This is a great proposal, but I would modify it slightly.

I, for one, am a formally trained vision scientist with a PhD in
Physiological Optics as well as an OD degree. My thesis research involved
the cell and molecular biology of visual pigments, but I took courses in my
major department in visual psychophysics. Currently I am a practicing
optometrist.

I do not understand the type of separation you describe as "eye vs. vision".
There are indeed a lot of areas of research and hard science involving
central nervous system processing of the visual signal in various centers of
the brain, eye movement coordination, etc. that are of deep interest to
clinicians. Certainly use clinicians/vision scientist care much more than
just about the globe than you apparently realize. For this reason I would
not support the type of separation of these groups as you define them. For
me the separation into two different newsgroups, which I think is an
interesting idea, should be made more along the line of "what is the status
quo current understanding of the functionality of the visual system (eye,
pathways, related brain centers, lids, lashed, etc.)" as compared to "what
are alternative theories, speculations regarding the visual system, and
areas of interest for which there is little supporting evidence and do not
represent the standard of care." Thus the names of the two groups could be
"sci.med.vision" for the former group, and something like "alt.med.vision"
for the second group. I think much of what you and Otis propose in this NG
represents an "alternative" approach to vision science and are certainly not
mainstream.

Some reasonable subjects for discussion in the SCI.MED.VISION group as I
would define it:
- eyeglass selection and prescriptions
- ocular migraines
- myopia progression
-cataract, LASIK, and other surgeries
-binocular vision/stereopsis
-medical disorders of the eye
-stabismus and amblyopia
-color vision
-contact lenses
-eye medications
-visual field defects


Some reasonable topics for discussion in ALT.MED.VISION group as I would
define it:
-alternative medical treatments for myopia that haven't yet been proven
-the possible role of emotional conflicts during childhood that might
produce ammetropias
-using herbs to affect the functioning of the eye
-sungazing
-palming and other eye relaxation exercises.
-correlation of personality types with ammetropias
-how to heal your vision by throwing away your minus lenses.
-how to heal your vision by wearing plus lenses instead of minus lenses
-meditation and sitar music and it's influence on relaxing against-the-rule
astigmatism

My separation involves more of a separation between "current standard of
care" vs. "alternative" approaches. Or "supported by science and
majority-opinion among eye specialists" vs. "interesting theories that
haven't been proven yet".

I'm sure your opinion will differ.

RM PhD OD

 

RM

So you are concluding that the COMET study on myopia and self esteem
introduced to the sci.med.vision list by Dr Judy could not be discussed
here but instead would go to alt.med.vision?

Similarly the research being proposed by a london twin study to look at
the influence of childhood events in Discordant Identical twins with
large myopic differences would also have to go to the alt list?

I find it hard to agree with your suggestion. These kind of issues are
best resolved by separating the lists into Eye Care and Vision along
the lines i have proposed.

Andrew

 

Dear Andrew,

Why not just refer these people to your own web site.

Or call it

SCI.MED.ANDREW

You clever guy -- you.

We will all be impressed
by your obious genius.

I will have to "vote" with
the ODs about this.

If I had to "deal" with you,
I would put you in a chair,
spin the dials on my phoropter,
and say, Andrew, you have
a refractive error of -3.25 dipoters
in the left, and -.75 diopters in the right.

You have astigmatism of 1/2 and 1/4 diopters -- as written.

And your theories are very interesting.
I enjoyed talking with you.

Please pay at the desk.

Otis

 

Surely a more appropriate name for the new group you are proposing would be
SCI.PSYCHOLOGY.VISION or something very similar?

Dom

 

These days, google fields their own groups, and the borders between google
groups and usenet groups are, unfortunately blurring.

Scott

 

andrew Judd,

eye care professionals deal with the eye, the orbit, the parts of the
brain involved in vision, and the parts of the surrounding facial
structures that relate to the eye (lids, lashes, etc). Your attempt to
keep them away from your proposed new "vision" newsgroup by trying to
restrict them to the eye newsgroup won't work. they will still be in
"your" newsgroup and argue against you whenever you propose something
unfounded and ridiculous. the separation should be a group that
represents on one hand "what is proven and is the current state of
eyecare practice" as opposed to "what is speculative and unproven".
in that case most of the eyedocs would leave you alone while you post
whatever you want in latter newsgroup.

we are just tired of you and Otis and Rishi misleading all the newbies
by having them believe that some of the stuff you talk about is
accepted. for instance:

there is no proof that personality conflicts cause ammetropias-- this
is not standard of care
there is no proof that plus lens therapies prevent myopia-- this is not
standard of care
there is no proof that sungazing, palming, relaxation, etc heals all
eye disorders-- this is not standard of care

if you want to post that crap in some newsgroup entitled
"alt.health.eyecare" or something like noone will get upset. but when
you come to a forum where doctors are giving advise to people with real
medical problems and you start spouting out unfounded unproven
therapies then you should expect to be opposed.

p.s.-- google doesn't oversee usenet newsgroups. you don't need to
have a usenet newsgroup anyway. just set up something on yahoo or
google according to whatever you want. it is accessible worldwide to
everyone anyway. usenet newsgroups were established decades ago before
the internet became what it is today. i'm not sure it is centrally
managed by anyone. smv is an old newsgroup where eye doctors,
scientists, etc used to post messages to one another. it has been
transformed in recent years into a question and answer forum for
persons with eyecare problems. now it is threatened to be transformed
again into a wackoo "this is my hairbrained theory" and "look at me--
aren't I intelligent" forum dominated by people who are not eye experts
and just simply want to show off and posture in front of everyone.

 

for once I am in total agreement with Otis.

 

The COMET study is science based and certainly belongs here. The COMET
study used accepted scientific method (matched controls, significance
measures, valid psychological tests). The kind of studies that Kaplan does
and that you have proposed (minimal control, subjective measures of mental
status based on a layman observing behaviour) or speculations about what
might be, without any science behind them, belong in alt.med.

There are already groups for psychology topics, maybe you would be happier
posting in them.

You should check out the alt.med groups. I think you would be happier there
and would find like minded people happy to debate what might be and to share
anecdotal evidence.

Dr Judy

 

I am not proposing a minimal control study!

I am proposing that the Optical authority provide me with a group of
'before' cases.

And i will then present him with a group of 'after' cases with
improvement after having worked with them for a period of time.

He can then evaluate the differences in the group without treatment
compared to the ones i have treated and draw conclusions accordingly.

What exactly is your argument against that!

 

There is a process for creating groups. It usually takes years and a
whole lot of hard work by many people. Talking about it on this group is
not part of the process.

Does googlegroups have their own groups? This group is accessible through
googlegroups but is a worldwide group accessible by anyone. Be aware that
even if googlegroups can set up its own groups, most people currently on
this group will not be able to access it.

You might want to consider trying to create an alt.* group, like
alt.med.vision. As more experimental groups, they are much easier to set
up, although then you have the problem of getting those who run newservers
to carry it.

 

Dan Abel wrote.

alt.med.vision.

I admit i am learning a bit about my relationship with traditional
medicine.

For example i have recently quoted an article that is very critical of
the use of Twin studies to support genetic theories. The author of
that article Jon Beckwith was the first person to isolate a gene in a
chromosome back in 1969. He has some authority in science but his
outspoken views on Intelligence and genetics and similar views that
human behaviour is all determined by our genes have made him a radical
in Science.

I am not a person who considers himself radical but I do align myself
with Beckwith who is American Cancer Society Research Professor at the
Harvard Medical School, Department of Microbiology and Molecular
Genetics.

I have the impression traditional medicine needs a group called
Alt.fogey.senile.fools.vision

 

No, actually, the point isn't supported. Jared Diamond is formally
trained, by virtue of his physiology degree, in hypothesis testing and
research methods. The fact that he changed fields is of little relevance.

Scott

 

Jon Beckwith ..... views that human behaviour is all determined by our
genes

seems a little odd that you would align yourself with someone who
believes everything is determined genetically. i recall you tried to
deny that there is any evidence at all that myopia has any genetic
component.

but consistency and logic isn't your strong point anyway-- too
emotional.

 

Retinula wrotebelieves everything is determined genetically.

Equally odd that you should interpret my reasonably clear comment
outspoken views on Intelligence and genetics and similar views that
human behaviour is all determined by our genes have made him a radical
in Science.

In such a dishonest manner.

 

<sigh> They used to say "Is it September already?" Then they blamed AOL.
While google is many admirable things and we should all get down on our knees
every night in thanks, it merely reflects and (the best part) archives the
great wide world called usenet:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x02

--
Cheers,
Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

 

Based on my experience getting a moderated offshot of an existing group going,
not that long. Once the vote-wrangler tallies the vote and creates the group,
SOMEBODY has to set up the moderation and injection software, and that depends
on time and access. Sometimes money has to change hands, but I don't think
it's practical to take up a collection to buy space on somebody's server.

Alt groups are different. Just do it :-( When people complain that their
newsfeed doesn't carry it, email the news admin and make a request.

Not enough people appreciate the wonder that is usenet. It may be better that
way, except for the fact that ISPs regard it as a high-cost low-usage feature.

--
Cheers,
Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

 

dear egotistical pseudo-intellectual idiot,

in case you didn't get it, the kind doctor just asked you to piss off
elsewhere.

cheers

 

Dear Bev,
Subject: Free-for-all on sci.med.vision

In all these "debates" it is amazing to see how quickly
the "debate" degenerates into "name-calling".

As Niels Bohr said, "We have identified a paradox -- now
we can start solving the problem.

The real difficulty is to identify the nature of the paradox.

Enjoy my friends.

Best,

Otis

 

My newserver carries alt.med.vision.improve, which certainly sounds like
what some people here are looking for. It has no posts though.