Scientific Zealots (Kory) run their own test of the primate eye

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Otis Brown, Aug 14, 2003.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Kory,

    Subject: Put on your "scientific hat". Check the data youself

    Otis> As you know Dr. Bates suggested that a person at 20/70, who
    received a strong minus lens would in relatively short
    time have his natural eyes move negative -- because
    the minus lens "changed" is visual enviroment.

    Otis> The "null hypotiesis" stated by MT and other ODs is that
    the natural eye DOES NOT CHANGE when you place a minus lens
    on it.

    Otis> If you ran, controlled and measured this test, I think
    you could form and objective SCIENTIFIC opinion about
    the behavior of the natural eye. Just put on your
    "scientific" hat for awhile.

    Otis> This is PURE SCIENCE since "defect" is not measured.
    But the issue would be the quality of your mind, and
    your ability to form an opinion that is separated
    from medicine.

    Otis> I do have some commentary on your remarks:

    Otis> This has been done with primates. Considering the natural
    eye to be dynamic, the test group changed their
    focal state in a negative direction relative to the
    control group.
    Why bother with "humans". The direct data is available.
    If you had the money and time you could run the above
    experiment, and get the same result -- as many
    times as you run it.
    In a condensed manner -- in a "pure science" manner,
    that is what he said.
    Exactly. The monkeys wearing a lens of -3 diopters would have
    an average-value of accommodation 3 diopters more negative
    than the control group.

    There can only be two results from this experiment.
    1. The test group moved in a negative direction, or
    2. No difference in focal status developed between the two groups.
    Why not just look at this experimental data. Why bother
    a "patient" with this issue. Form you own opinion
    based on the explicit-experimental (i.e., SCIENTIFIC) data.
    No need -- if you believe in the results of the above PURE

    I agree. He may be wrong on other issues -- but not on this one.
    Good observation.



    Otis Brown, Aug 14, 2003
    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.