Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by andrewedwardjudd, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. 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

    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.

    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. andrewedwardjudd

    RM Guest

    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

    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
    "" for the former group, and something like ""
    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

    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
    -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

    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, Mar 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. RM

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

    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.

    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 30, 2005
  4. andrewedwardjudd

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Andrew,

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

    Or call it


    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.

    otisbrown, Mar 30, 2005
  5. andrewedwardjudd

    Dom Guest

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

    Dom, Mar 30, 2005
  6. These days, google fields their own groups, and the borders between google
    groups and usenet groups are, unfortunately blurring.

    Scott Seidman, Mar 30, 2005
  7. andrewedwardjudd

    retinula Guest

    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
    "" 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.
    retinula, Mar 30, 2005
  8. andrewedwardjudd

    retinula Guest

    for once I am in total agreement with Otis.
    retinula, Mar 30, 2005
  9. andrewedwardjudd

    Dr Judy Guest

    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

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

    You should check out the 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
    Dr Judy, Mar 30, 2005
  10. 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!
    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 30, 2005
  11. andrewedwardjudd

    Dan Abel Guest

    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 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, Mar 30, 2005
  12. Dan Abel wrote.

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

    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

    I have the impression traditional medicine needs a group called
    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 31, 2005
  13. 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 Seidman, Mar 31, 2005
  14. andrewedwardjudd

    retinula Guest

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

    but consistency and logic isn't your strong point anyway-- too
    retinula, Mar 31, 2005
  15. 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.
    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 31, 2005
  16. andrewedwardjudd

    The Real Bev Guest

    <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:

    "If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
    be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)
    The Real Bev, Mar 31, 2005
  17. andrewedwardjudd

    The Real Bev Guest

    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.

    "If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
    be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)
    The Real Bev, Mar 31, 2005
  18. andrewedwardjudd

    retinula Guest

    dear egotistical pseudo-intellectual idiot,

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

    retinula, Mar 31, 2005
  19. andrewedwardjudd

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Bev,
    Subject: Free-for-all on

    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.


    otisbrown, Mar 31, 2005
  20. andrewedwardjudd

    Dan Abel Guest

    My newserver carries, which certainly sounds like
    what some people here are looking for. It has no posts though.
    Dan Abel, Apr 8, 2005
    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.