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.

    10/12 page 10
    headache, intestinal fermentation, constipation, etc. His local oculist, the last one, told him repeatedly and emphatically that his frontal headache was not due to his eyes, that he must get that idea off his mind. The patient returned to the oculist, saying that his headache must be due to his eyes, and quoted some patient of mine. Again there was the assurance that it was not the fault of the eyes,—adding that “Doctor G. allows his hobby to get away with him.” Now the point of the story is that the man was wearing incorrect glasses, and that correct ones gave him immediate relief of all his symptoms. I shall soon publish reports of many such cases, the moral being that those who complain most of the hobby-riding of “the eyestrain crank,” are precisely those whose glasses are most incorrect, who, therefore, do not cure so many of their cases as they should; thus they demonstrate that their skepticism is the con- sequence of their inexpertness. As of old, deeds are followed by faith. They who do the will of ophthalmology shall learn of the doctrine. In a practical way there is no such thing as “science” and “truth.” The least knowledge of the history of science, and especially of such an inexact, and fluctuating science as medicine, quickly demonstrates that there is no rest- ing with acquired truth. The attainment of one generation, of one decade, must be supplanted by that of another. Progress may build on the certainty of the past, but at once the new progress makes the old certainty an almost colorless and use- less thing. Even the most solidly founded, most universally admitted truth of modern science, the atomic theory, has been almost undone within the last year or two. In therapeutics and etiology, surely, we are learning that an acceptance of the average opinion, reliance upon the concensus of most generally accepted belief, is folly, and that even the trust in so-called ethics and professionalism, may go too far. If I can cure my patient only by the decried and unscientific and “inethical” remedy, I shall surely cure him in that bad way, because the standards of democratic averages, of common consent, of ethics, and the rest, vary and change, but kindness and benevolence never change. Medicines may fail, but Medicine will not fail. Say what we will, medical practice is far more empirical than scientific, and the hobby-riders and exaggerators are the dis- coverers of empiricism. The only doubt is as to the certainty of the “facts” and the “cures” of the “unscientific empiricist,” but that doubt cannot be lessened or resolved by any cry of “hobby-riding,” “extremism,” etc., or by any sneer of the self- satisfied. POSTSCRIPT. After the proofs of the foregoing had been returned to the printer, the following letter M^as received from a representa-
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3