You are herescience
science
Home Eye Pressure Monitoring Recommended
Millions of people around the world should be monitoring their eye pressure (intraocular pressure) at home, according to health organizations (such as International Society for Self-Tonometry (ISST)) that are issuing recommendations on what to do and how to do it. Many experts, such as Dr. Graham Lee, feel the evidence is quite strong that home eye pressure monitoring leads to better control of intraocular pressure, and the evidence is quite strong that intraocular pressure control lowers the risk of glaucoma progression and optic nerve cell death.
Intraocular Pressure: It's the data, stupid
The following post is adapted from "A Deluge of Data Shapes a New Era in Computing" By JOHN MARKOFF, published: December 14, 2009 in The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/15books.html?_r=1&pagewanted=p...
Top computer scientists say we have entered the age of data-intensive scientific discovery. Dr. Gray, who was a database software pioneer and a Microsoft researcher, called the shift a “fourth paradigm.” The first three paradigms were experimental, theoretical and, more recently, computational science.
"The scientists were stuck in 1920"
There is a New York Times article entitled "Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel" By GINA KOLATA published on May 16, 2006. I just read it today. The article is about recent discoveries in exercise physiology. It turns out that the accepted scientific understanding of a fundamental aspect of exercise was wrong for more than 80 years. It ends with a quote by Dr. Brooks: "The scientists were stuck in 1920." He's talking about the entire field of exercise physiology!
Even when the mistake was shown by good research, the entire field continued to fight against Dr. Brooks's discoveries for decades. In some ways it reminds me of the fight against new tonometers such as the Ocular Response Analyzer and the Pascal Dynamic Contour tonometer that we see in ophthalmology now.
In my experience, science (as typically practiced) is wrong so much that I think people who maintain a predominantly scientific (i.e., materialistic) world view are disadvantaged. For example, the article says, "Coaches have understood things the scientists didn't." That is almost always the case in almost every field at all times.
The people who are "in the trenches" understand things scientists don't. Now this isn't to say that the scientific method is bad or that data-driven methodology should be discarded. Good coaches rely on a ton of data and they have excellent observation skills. They do have a scientific approach. The difference is they are not limited by a dogmatic scientific materialism.
Furthermore, the practice of science in today's world is so wrapped up with ego, power, career advancement and money that the altruistic aims of science get pushed aside. And new discoveries get trampled by established scientists who want to hold on to their positions of power and prestige.
Homeopathy and Astrology
I was very disappointed to see a reference to [homeopathic ophthalmology] in FitEyes.com. The worst view of homeopathy is that it is quackery; the less scathing one is that it is not "evidence based medicine".
What next? Will we see links to astrologers and aromatherapists who lay claim to curing eye diseases?
NOTE: Please read this comment for the FitEyes perspective: http://fiteyes.com/forum/homeopathy-and-astrology-558#comment-937 (requires free registration)
The God Choice (Article From USA Today)
The God choice
Armed with new technology, scientists are peering into the brain to better understand human spirituality. What if, they say, God isn’t some figment of our imagination? Instead, perhaps brain chemistry simply reflects an encounter with the divine.
By Barbara Bradley Hagerty
