Message from discussion
Dr. Bates: The Effect of the Minus on the Eye's Refractive STATE
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: p.clar...@gmail.com
Newsgroups: sci.med.vision
Subject: Re: Dr. Bates: The Effect of the Minus on the Eye's Refractive STATE
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <3d431bcd-747b-4ec6-a2a6-77b66b30a463@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>
References: <14b240a2-a6bc-44c6-b600-977345beeb0f@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<af0339a0-4e59-49fb-8972-239812b1cf46@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
<2adb7cee-03d5-42dc-acbb-160d6f0b394e@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.4.81.205
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1206938776 11300 127.0.0.1 (31 Mar 2008 04:46:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:46:16 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com; posting-host=72.4.81.205;
posting-account=xwFUoAkAAABhDVKXGdQWI3x6ghe95d7t
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13)
Gecko/20080311 Firefox/2.0.0.13,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
On Mar 30, 7:50 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar -- and
> >often convincing.
>
> Actually, debate often leads to intellectual progress.
> It's true that arguments can divide people, but arguments help people
> to know where they stand and to make an analysis of the scenario. If
> there were never any arguments, one may deduce that everyone has the
> same opinion on everything. What kind of a world would it be if
> everyone agreed on everything? Boring
>
> >This is Dr. Bates' statement about his reason for his
> >opposing the use of a minus lens on an eye that is slightly
> >nearsighted.
>
> Actually, Dr. Bates opposed the use of a minus lens on ANY eyes.
> Slightly nearsighted or very nearsighted is not relevant.
>
> >From Chapter 8 by Dr. Bates
> >(Clarifying statement added -- minus lens)
> >That (minus-lens) glasses must injure the eye is evident
>
> Actually, Dr. Bates was describing the effect of ANY lenses. Minus
> lens, plus lens, astigmatic corrective lens, etc. He was impartial on
> what kind of lens is in use, but stated that they are ALL detrimental
> to the sight.
>
> You are twisting his words, Otis!
>
> Can't you just stick to Dr Raphaelson and leave poor Dr. Bates alone?
> Imagine how much he is suffering right now in his grave knowing how
> his statements have been corrupted with wrong interpretation! Gosh!
what a nice story. is there any proof for this? published reports,
independent verification, publication in peer-reviewed journals? Or
is it just supposition? it just SOUNDS like is has to be right. Too
bad you have to prove it, and when various researchers have looked at
various aspects of this (intentionally using overminusing, using no
spectacles at all, etc.) there appears to be no detrimental effects of
using glasses-- they just help people see better.
|
