Dear Scientific friends,

Subject: The second-opinion by medical people.

What the experimental data (the priamte studies and the response of a natural
eye to an applied -3 diopter lens) suggests, is that the natural eye will
respond (although VERY SLOWLY) to an applied plus lens (obviously, under control
of the person himself.

Thus, whatever you might believe about Raphaelson and Dr. Colgates, in the end
it becomes a question of verifying the natural eye's behavior in a lab.

This is (as is said) a repeatable experiment. I have no doubt, now, that if you
wish to further CONFIRM the dynamic behavior of the eye, you can repeat the
primate (-3 diopter) experiment, and GET THE SAME RESULT.

The science of it is settled. But it does take a person who will ask the
INSIGTFUL QUESTION -- in the first place.

Here are some commentary on the subject of fundamental scientific truth.

How can anyone learn anything new -- who does not find it a
shock?

John A. Wheeler


The task of the physicist is to see through the appearances
down to the underlyling, very simple, symmetric reality.

Steven Weinberg


Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would
search for pearls must dive below.

-John Dryden


Truth comes out of error more readily than out of confusion.

- Francis Bacon

It is one Thing, to show a Man that he is in an Error, and
another, to put him in possession of Truth.

- John Locke


The ill and unfit choice of words wonderfully obstructs the
understanding.

- Francis Bacon


Remarks from sci.med.vision for your enjoyment:
===================

Dear Friends,

Subject: Learning to ask the RIGHT question (about the dynamic nature of the
eye).

Here a layman "Sheridan", responds to my statement:

> >Otis> Knowing the person, and his intent and qualities are essential for
engineering and science. Knowing how to run a scientific experiment yourself,
and trusting your own measurements -- is the essence of science.

Otis> But, for instance, I know Stirling Colgate as a highly qulified person
who I trust. So when he described HIS experience will applying a preventive
plus to himself, I have little reason to doubt his successful results.

> #################
>
>
> The above is so completely wrong on so many levels that I don't know
> where to begin!
>
> 1) "The person" has NOTHING to do with the scientific method. All
> that matters is that the experiment and its results are described
> in sufficient clarity so that the experiment can be repeated and
> its results verified.
>
> 2) "Trusting your own measurements" is NOT science. You do the
> best job you can, then you publish your results and wait for others
> to replicate them. Without replication, your results alone mean
> NOTHING by themselves. The fact that you think they are right
> means NOTHING.
>
> 3) "A highly qualified person who I can trust" means NOTHING. In
> science, this is called "the fallacy of appeal to authority".
> Authority means NOTHING. Again, all that counts is the experimental
> results and whether those results can be replicated by others.
>
>
> Otis the Engineer - you have a LOT to learn about science and the
> scientific method!
>
> ****************

Everyone is entitled to his "version" of the scientific enterprise.

> In my judgment, most of the critical issues are answered.

> But it depends on re-thinking the behavior of the natural eye, and asking,
"... how would I test the natural eye to determine IF IT WOULD CHANGE ITS
REFRACTIVE STATE from an applied -3 diopter lens."

> Science Second-opinion best,

> Otis