The 'exaggeration' and hobby-riding of the eyestrain theorist / by George M. Gould.

  • Gould, George Milbrey, 1848-1922.
Date:
1906
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The 'exaggeration' and hobby-riding of the eyestrain theorist / by George M. Gould. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    1/12
    ]^.eprinted from Axnai-s ok Oi’iitiiai,molo<;v, January, 1906. THE “EXAGGERATION” AND HOBBY-RIDING OF TPIE EYESTRAIN THEORIST. By George M. Gould, M. D., PHILADELPHIA. One of the most common and ancient of the methods of Ignoring and denying new medical truths, discoveries, and pro- gress, is to call their advocates “cranks,” “exaggerators,” “en- thusiasts,” “hobby-riders,” “theorists,” “extremists,” “grinders of their own axes,” etc. These flattering epithets are so pleas- ing to the epithet-makers, and the consciences of these gentle- men are sometimes so suspicious that the epithets are incorrect, that the honorary titles usually appear in unsigned editorials, reviews, and in other allusive and elusive places and ways; thereby one is prevented from answering and bringing refuta- tion home to one person’s judgment. Lately, however, one con- frere has boldly said these things to me in a personal letter. To him I sent the following reply. I publish it because my corre- spondent’s attitude of mind is so representative, so precisely that of many who seek or assume to be “leaders” of professional opinion and practice. As that attitude of mind is peculiarly misleading, as it is wholly unprofessional (i. e., not for the good of the profession), I think that the falsity of’every one of its false statements should be exposed. As these statements are^ not founded upon reason, they will not convince their ir- rational makers, but one may possibly prevent the hardening of some of the minds of the young into illogic dogmatism and prejudice. Mr. dear Dr, (Copy.) Epitomizing your unkind letter of January 15, 1906, I And that directly, or by implication, you charge me with the’follow- ing blinders, mistakes, professional sins, and crimes: 1. That, contrary to my view, heterophoria produces dis- turbing symptoms which cannot possibly be relieved by simolv correcting the refraction. ^ ^ ^ 2. That “some of my statements are extremely loose when considered from a scientific viewpoint;” that I have “a dis- regard for the powers of observation of other medical men ” nave a tendency to confound theory with fact (truth) a bias tow^ard a pet idea; that I am an “extremist,” “kddist,’’ “hob- 3- That^“they do not forget,” and you plainly imply that I do forget, that there are other things besides eyest^rL that may produce headache; that indigestion, chorea, epilepsy etc are often due to other things than eyestrain. ’ ’