Pure scientific (not medical) truth -- only. Who decides?

Dear Friends,


Subject: Counter-arguments by the majority-opinion ODs -- against
the dynamic-eye concept.

First, let us get the scientific facts straight. They are:

_____________________

SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR THE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF THE EYE

(Subsequent Primate Tests show exactly the same natural
behavorial characteristic.)

1. Frank Schaeffel, Adrian Glasser and Howard C. Howland,
"Accommodation, Refractive Error and Eye Growth in Chickens",
VISION RES., Vol 28, No. 5 pp 639-657, 1988. Pergamon
Press.

RESULTS:

o All eyes treated with positive lenses became consistently more
positive.

o Negative lenses produced more negative refractions in all eyes.

o In a test of plus/minus lenses on left/right eyes, the eye with
the plus lens moved in a positive direction.

o The eye with a minus lens moved in a minus direction.

o The control group did not change significantly in any direction.

_______________________

The ODs on sci.med.vision argue that

1. None of the above is "scientifically true".

2. I have "made it up".

3. Scientific proof that the eye is dynamic must be "rejected" --
because the ODs tell us it must be rejected.


In fact the ODs have been very skillful in their "arguments"
about this scientific proof. Their "life blood" depends on
"spinning" these scientific facts beyond any recognition of
scientific proof.

John has been on the "receiving" end of these arguments.
Here is a synopsis of their skillful efforts to avoid preceiving
scientific truth.

The reality is that nearsighedness prevention is possible --
but you must do it yourself.

_____________________________


In working on the concept of the eye's dynamic behavior I
have encountered a whole series of counter-arguments.

Some are reasonable and should be addressed (and have been)
on an engineering-scientific level. However many of them are
"protective" in nature of the traditional minus-lens method.

Mr. Stanley V. McDaniel's excellent book, "The McDaniel
Report, How to 'debunk' just about anything" as abridged by Daniel
Drasin (North Atlantic Books: 1993, ISBN 1-55643-088-4) is an
excellent antidote for these counter-arguments.

These argument (below) have proven to be effective in
preventing an effort to work towards true nearsightedness
prevention. I have encountered them in various forms. Add to
this the fact that most people put scant value on their distant
vision, and you have the case for hermetically sealed ignorance --
and a complete block to taking the first steps to achieve
effective nearsightedness prevention.

The facts that demonstrate the natural eye's behavior are
clear on a scientific level. However, the following arguments
have been proven to be effective in derailing this perception of
scientific (experimental) truth.

For the above reasons I have also made it my business to
collect particularly egregious examples of this art of
*de-bunkery* -- or the substitution of this pseudo-scientific
propaganda for fundamental scientific research concerning basic
truth about the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

We should understand what makes this "de-bunkery" tick.
Stanley has catalogued literally dozens of manipulative tricks and
techniques with which generations of "debunkers" have successfully
achieved the arrest or suppression of a broad range of discovery
and innovation as they concern true PREVENTION of nearsightedness.

To provide additional assistance and inspiration to the
novice and others who argue for *new ideas* and scientific
concepts, Stanley has clearly articulated his extensive collection
as assembled below -- which I have edited slightly. This is a
modest primer on the how-to's of "de-bunkery" by "professions" who
dislike any change in orthodoxy or criticism of the "accepted"
traditional method.

Properly understood and applied, (against any fundamentally
new scientific concept) these principles may be instrumental in
delaying rational inquiry into the question of the natural eye's
dynamic behavior by decades, and perhaps by centuries.


General "De-bunkery"

Or how to "put down" *anyone* who questions existing
orthodoxy that insists that all eyes are fixed box-cameras that
can never change their refractive status as their visual environment
is changed. A great mass of experimental data collected over the
past fifty years clearly demonstrates that the eye does in fact
change its refractive status as the visual environment is changed.

There is scant direct scientific evidence to support the
excessively idealized notion that the eye is, and behaves as a
"fixed" box-camera, or optical bench.

Regardless, the traditional (400 year-old) method of the
minus lens "wins" this argument. This is for the reasons stated
below -- and the true scientific facts are totally ignored. Here
are some of the reasons for this failure of scientific perception.


COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

1. Put on the "right face". Cultivate a condescending air that
suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full
faith and credit of "God". Employ vague, subjective,
dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a
manner that suggests they have the full force of "scientific
authority".

2. Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but
as a holy war against unruly hordes of "quackery-worshiping
infidels". Since in war the ends justify the means, you may
fudge, stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it
entirely, in the name of defending "the scientific method".

3. Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible.
This will "send the message" that "accepted theory" over-rides
any actual evidence that might challenge it -- and that
therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

4. Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are
inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately
confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of
science.

(Someone may, of course, object that science must
be neutral to subject matter and that only the investigative
process can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible.
If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method
employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply
reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here.")

5. Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority.
The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly
proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

6. Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are
"touted," and to your own assertions as "facts " which are
"stated."

7. Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say
with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support
such ridiculous claims!"

(Note that this technique has withstood the test
of time, and dates back at least to the age of
Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his
telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church
over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear.)

8. If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back
that "there is nothing new here." If confronted by a
water-tight body of evidence that has survived the most
rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."

9. Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all*
of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and
critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition,
inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects,
accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy,
subjective or metaphysical terms.

10. Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the
unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science
equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionism
approach in any situation by discarding more and more and
more evidence until what little is left can finally be
explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.

11. Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement
and respectful debate are a normal part of science.

12. At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is
*familiar* is necessarily *rational*. The unfamiliar is
therefore irrational -- and consequently in-admissible as
evidence.

13. State categorically that the "un-conventional" arises
exclusively from the will-to-believe and may be dismissed as,
at best, an honest "mis-interpretation" of the conventional.

14. Maintain that in investigations of "un-conventional"
phenomena, a single flaw or misstep invalidates the whole.
In a "conventional" context, however, you may sagely remind
the world that, " ... after all, situations are complex and
human beings are imperfect."

15. "Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," suggests
that the correct explanation of a mystery will usually
involve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist,
therefore, that the most *familiar* explanation is by
definition the *simplest*.

16. Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma
as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many
historical and philosophical parallels between science and
democracy.

17. Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction
between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain
this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state
categorically that there is no evidence.

18. If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further
investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence
alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary
evidence is not *supposed* to prove *anything*.

19. In any case, imply that proof *precedes* evidence. This will
eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful
process of investigation particularly if no criteria of proof
have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

20. Insist that the criteria of proof cannot possibly be
established for phenomena that do not exist!

21. Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double
standards, always insist that "unconventional phenomena" must
be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific
rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims
demand extraordinary evidence" but take care never to define
where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins.
This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding
evidential-horizon, i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence
as that which lies just out of reach at any point-in-time.

22. Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all
phenomena popularly deemed "paranormal" and suggest that
their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice.
In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across
disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support
your views as needed.

For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the
one at hand has been (or is popularly *assumed* to have been)
exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate
example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your
armchair and simply say, "I rest my case."

23. Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to
seeing what's *not* there, and not to denying what *is*
there.

24. Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single
most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery
and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people
of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a
twinkling.

It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently
independent of mind not to buy into that kind of emotional
"consensus building" that ridicule provides.

25. By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule
constitutes an essential feature of scientific method -- that
can raise the level of objectivity, integrity and
dispassionateness with which any investigation is conducted.

26. Imply that investigators of the "unorthodox" are zealots.
Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of
something one must first believe in it absolutely. Then
demand that all such "true believers" know all the answers to
their most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of
time.

Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them that you
yourself would "love to believe in these 'fantastic
phenomena'" -- carefully side-stepping the fact that science
is not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding
out.

27. Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in
question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as
deep and time-consuming, while deeming that of "unusual
phenomena" is so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than
a scan of the tabloids.

If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing there to
study!" Characterize any serious investigator of the
unorthodox as a "buff' or "freak," or as "self-styled" -- the
media's favorite code-word for "bogus."

28. Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or
expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or
reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation.

So discredit the whole story by attempting to discredit part of
the story.

Here's how:

a) Take one element of a case completely out of context;

b) Find something prosaic that hypothetically *could* explain it;

c) Declare that, therefore, this one element *has been explained*;

d) Call a press conference and announce to the world that *the
entire case* has been explained.

29. Find a prosaic phenomenon that superficially resembles the
claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the existence of the
commonplace look-alike somehow *forbids* the existence of the
genuine article.

For example, imply that since people often see "faces" in rocks
and clouds, the enigmatic Face on Mars must be a similar
illusion and therefore cannot possibly be artificial.

30. Accuse honest investigators of "unusual phenomena" of
believing in "invisible forces and extrasensory realities."

If they should point out that the physical sciences have always
dealt with invisible forces and extra-sensory realities
(gravity, electromagnetism, etc.) respond with a
condescending chuckle that this is " ... a naive
interpretation of the facts."

31. Label any poorly-understood phenomenon as "occult,"
"paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical" or "supernatural."

This will get most "mainstream scientists" off the case
immediately on purely emotional grounds.

32. Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of
proof.

For example, "if this claim were true, why haven't we seen it on
TV?" or why haven't we read it "in this or that scientific
journal?"

Never forget the "mother" of all such questions: "If
extra-terrestrials exist, why haven't they landed on the
White House lawn?"

33. Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's claims
by building "straw men" to demolish.

a) One way to do this is to misquote them while preserving that
convincing grain of truth; for example, by acting as if they
have intended the extreme of any position they've taken.

b) Another effective strategy with a long history of success is
simply to mis-replicate their experiments or to avoid
replicating them at all on grounds that to do so would be
"ridiculous" or "fruitless."

c) To make the whole process even easier, respond *not to their
actual claims* but to their claims as reported by the media,
or as propagated in popular myth.

34. Hold claimants responsible for the production of values and
editorial policies of *any* media or press that reports their
claim.

If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a
sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the original
event itself must have been without substance or worth.

35. When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that
is *slightly* scientifically imperfect, treat this statement
as if it were not scientific at all. If the claimant is not
a credentialed scientist, argue that his or her behavior
cannot possibly be "scientifically correct".

36. If you are unable to attack the facts of the case, attack
*the participants* or the journalists who reported the case.

Ad-hominem arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most
powerful ways of swaying the public and/or of *completely
avoiding* the issue.

a) For example, if investigators or chroniclers of the unorthodox
have profited financially from activities connected with
their research, accuse them of "profiting financially from
activities connected with their research!"

b) If their research, publishing, speaking tours and so forth,
constitute their normal line of work or sole means of
support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that income is
being realized from such activities!"

c) If they have labored to achieve some public recognition of
their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity
seekers."

d) Take care not to *inadvertently apply such judgments* to those
pursuing, in similar fashion, "orthodox" activities.

37. Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the
opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the
necessary knowledge.

Astronomers, for example, may be trotted out as "experts" on the
evolution questions, although course credits in evolution
have never been a prerequisite for a degree in astronomy.

38. Fabricate entire research projects.

Declare that " ,,, these claims have been thoroughly discredited
by the
top experts in the field!" Do this whether or not such
experts have ever actually studied the claims -- or, for that
matter, that such "experts" even exist.



I do not take lightly my advocacy that you be offered a
"second opinion" when you are on the threshold of nearsightedness.
You decision will have life-time consequences for you.
It is a decision YOU should make, and not by
placing a minus lens on your face -- with out
any discussion at all.

I do think that these types of counter-arguments are of no
help to you if you wish to understand the science that supports
advocacy for effective prevention of nearsightedness.



Otis Brown

 

Dear Friends.

FINALLY, Otis got it right. Number 2 is correct.

Allen

 

Dear Allen,

Go back to sleep Allen.

Scientific facts and analysis concerning
the dynamic nature of the fundamental
eye -- are not for you.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

I am seeking facts Otis.

You fail every time I ask you to provide medical evidence supporting your
position.

Please provide medical evidence supporting your position OUTSIDE your
website (preferably evidence in this century would be nice).

For some reason, I bet you won't......

Allen

 

What a load of meaningless drivel.....

 

Dear Otis,

Wow, you must have read Mr. McDaniel's book a number of times and have
skillfuly referenced the material when discussing "the dynamic behavior of
the natural eye". You have without doubt employed many of the book's methods
to sway the minds of the poor unsuspecting people who come to this group for
help with real problems.

Roland Izaac

 

This and other similar studies that you are fond of quoting are studies of
emmetropization in neonatal animals with minimal refractive error, using
high minus and high plus lenses to simulate congenital hyperopia and
congenital myopia. They are not studies of non neonatal children or adults
with non congenital refractive error corrected with the correct glasses.
As such, these studies have no relavance to adults or children with non
congenital refractive error.

Not true. We all agree that emmetropization occurs, we do argue that it is
not "proof" of your idea that wearing low plus lenses will reverse non
congenital myopia in non neo nates.

You, on the other hand, ignore the studies that show adult chickens wearing
minus lenses to correct their myopia (as opposed to using minus lenses to
simulate hyperopia) do not show an increase in myopia over time.

Again, not true. We only state that it is not "proof" of your idea that
wearing low plus lenses will reverse non congenital myopia in non neo nates.

Not true. We believe in accommodation and emmetropization. We only state
that it is not "proof" of your idea that wearing low plus lenses will
reverse non congenital myopia in non neo nates.

You have argued that the many human studies that "prove" wearing plus
lenses has minimal to no effect on myopia must be rejected.

Dr Judy

 

Subject: Counter-arguments by the majority-opinion ODs -- against

***** OTIS WARNING *****


This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread
that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
"" or "Otis, Engineer".

Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is
unproven.

Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the names of
doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been caught in
out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his
behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel him to
argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument.

Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not
reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that
should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick
psychological needs.

No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is only
meant to forewarn newcomers who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare
expert. Those of us who have been here for awhile know Otis oh too well!

For anyone who is interested in understanding the true state of
scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following
links:
http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf
http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?ArticleType=SiteSpec&page=osc/apr01/lesson_0401.htm
http://dels.nas.edu/ilar/jour_online/40_2/V40_2NortonAnimalModels.asp
http://www.optometrists.asn.au/gui/files/ceo865276.pdf

If you are truly interested in Otis' theories of myopia prevention then
visit his favorite websites www.i-see.org and www.chinamyopia.com.

Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision", which usually
appears on Mondays, for a guide regarding this newsgroup and for information
on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in
worthwhile discussions in this forum.

For further information on killfilling (filtering out the posts of a troll
or spammer) see the following link:
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm
For additional information on handling "trolls" like Otis, refer to this
link:
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm