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