2

I am aware that "behavioural optometry", the extension of optometry to cover a wide array of problems, is definitely a pseudoscience.

However, is optometry itself entirely a pseudoscience? From what I have gathered on the web, ophthalmologists (aka real scientists) distance themselves from it, but I have not seen outright condemnation. (After review and reconsideration, I see now that the "distancing" I spoke of was more to do with distancing from some claims on curing myopia, which is espoused by some optometrists, but not necessarily representative of optometry.)

Some of the writing by optometrists has warning signs of being a pseudoscience. For example, in this ebook about how to cure myopia, which I was referred to by multiple (3) optometrists via the site justanswer.com, there are a lot of the standard conspiracy theory style denials of mainstream science. Such as:

That the real cause of myopia is being kept from the public is nothing short of a tragedy. The numerous organizations that pretend to tell the public about eye care are supported financially by eye doctors and the optical industry. They spend millions of dollars urging us to have our eyes examined, knowing that this will lead to more eye business.

There is definitely a lot about the way optometry has so far been presented to me that makes me personally very sceptical, but perhaps I'm being overly dismissive.

Is there any merit in optometry, or is it an outright pseudoscience?

Questioner
  • 501
  • 3
  • 13
  • I think what you are really asking is whether the ideas of the International Myopia Prevention Association (using "plus lenses" to correct myopia) are pseudoscience or whether the specific optometrist who wrote that was delusional. Optometrist are in some places (e.g. USA) considered healthcare professionals and in many places are equated to ophtalmologists (possibly after passing some exam). – nico Mar 25 '14 at 06:41
  • @nico, no, what I am really asking is what I asked. It's not relevant what places or how many people consider something healthcare (for example hundreds of millions of Chinese refer to ancient unfounded practises, but that doesn't validate them in any way). And I don't particularly care which group, the Myopia Prevention Association or any other, is the biggest advocate. My question is, "is optometry a psuedoscience." It's no different than asking, "is NLP a pseudoscience?" or "is accupuncture a pseudoscience?" – Questioner Mar 25 '14 at 06:46
  • 2
    that is not what your question is asking though. You are reporting a quote from the myopia prevention association that does not in any part say "ophtalmologists are lying to you, while optometrists are enlightened about the truth". The guy who wrote that may be an optometrist, but that does not mean all optometrists agree with him. Or are you saying that what that page presents are the teaching of optometry? – nico Mar 25 '14 at 09:14
  • @nico, just because I provide one example does not reduce the question into specifics. If I ask "Are all crows black?" and provide one picture of a black crow as an example of what I have seen so far, that does not mean I am asking only about that one crow that is pictured. I have no idea how representative that quote is, **which is why I am asking**. I think my question is clear, so, respectfully, I will leave it for others to answer. In the meantime, you are in no way obligated to try and make it make sense under your own terms. – Questioner Mar 25 '14 at 09:33
  • 1
    as you are new to the site, I would ask you to read the [welcome to new users page](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users) that explains how this site works. Your question is asking to investigate a claim about miopia, that is made by an association, nothing more. If that is not what you want to ask about optometrists then you should remove that quote and find a notable claim about optometry being a pseudoscience. – nico Mar 25 '14 at 09:50
  • 2
    @nico, [this accepted question](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/57/7180) does not provide a notable claim against psychoanalysis, just an example of an encounter with it, just as I do. Similarly [this question](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/399/7180), and [this question](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7611/is-there-such-a-thing-as-an-aura) just ask whether or not a thing has validity or not, as I am doing. I think there's precedent for questions like mine, and so I think I have articulated it fairly, and I intend to see if anyone answers as it is. – Questioner Mar 25 '14 at 10:54
  • As you wish, I was just providing my feedback to improve the question, nothing personal of course. – nico Mar 25 '14 at 11:06
  • @nico, Fair enough. `:)` – Questioner Mar 25 '14 at 11:08
  • 7
    This question fails to define optometry satisfactorily. Not all those with the title "optometrist" or who claim to practice "optometry" are equal. The first paragraph of the wikipedia article on [optometry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optometry) demonstrates that it means different things in different countries. – called2voyage Mar 25 '14 at 14:14
  • To use your crows example, this would be like you asking a question about all corvids that can really only be answered based on whether you're talking about the genus Corvus specifically, or ravens, or jackdaws. – called2voyage Mar 25 '14 at 14:17
  • The statement that the optical industry funds a bunch of organisations that promote treatment that the optical industry produces is probably factually true. Why do you call it a conspiracy theory. It's just plain working of the market and big companies paying for promotion of their products. The linked page makes a bunch of factual claims which would be interesting to challenge. Don't focus on vague labels such as "pseudoscience" but on specific claims.I would suggest to edit the question in a way that focuses on whether certain specific claims that optometric practioners make are true. – Christian Mar 25 '14 at 14:30
  • @Christian, the practises of reiki and psychic healing mean different things to different practitioners. As does ESP and clairvoyance. Yet I don't think anyone has any difficulty categorizing them without breaking them into specific instances. Why does optometry, as opposed to these other practises, get to be approached differently? And if there is a reason, then that should be an answer, because that is exactly what I am asking about. – Questioner Mar 25 '14 at 14:36
  • @called2voyage, the whole purpose of my question is to find out what optometry *really* is, so asking me to define it so that it can be defined for me is circular. If you asked me if accupuncture was a pseudoscience, I could answer that parts are and parts aren't with a little bit about which and why. If the answer to my crow question was "actually, there is a broader spectrum of black birds called corvids, and here are the differences you should know," that would be a lot more helpful than, "why don't you already know about corvids?" – Questioner Mar 25 '14 at 14:40
  • @DaveMG Fair enough. The answer to your question as stated, however, will be a qualified no. I don't know enough of what you're looking for to know if this is useful to you. – called2voyage Mar 25 '14 at 14:43
  • @called2voyage, thanks for your understanding. Hopefully there are others who do know enough to provide insight into what those qualifactions to the "no" are. I'm not here to bury or praise optometry, I just hope for rational perspective, because it's hard to find information that is not written by optometrists themselves. – Questioner Mar 25 '14 at 14:46
  • 2
    My Ophthalmologist treats my Myopia the same way my previous Optometrist did -- by prescribing lenses. If you trust Ophthalmologists and say that they distance themselves from Optometrists, it seems a little odd that he'd continue the same treatment as my Optometrist without suggesting another course of treatment. Since Optometry is accepted in the mainstream, but "curing" myopia without lenses or corrective surgery doesn't appear to have much mainstream medical support, I think a better question would be whether or not it's possible to "cure" myopia without lenses or surgery. – Johnny Mar 25 '14 at 21:19
  • @DaveMG : Categorising think into labels isn't what this website is about. On the other hand Reiki is not really a pseudoscience because it not satisfies the criteria that it practitioners pretends that it's scientific. There are some people who practice "quantum healing" who do pretend to practice something that scientific. Those people practice pseudoscience but most people in the energy healing field practice neither pseudoscience nor proper science. – Christian Mar 26 '14 at 00:11
  • Opthamologists are not "real scientists", they are "real doctors" (at least in the USA). Optomitrists are not medical doctors. – adam.r Mar 30 '14 at 23:35
  • I see no reason that the ebook should be considered representative of credentialed Optometrists. Why do you think it's anything more than some random nut spouting conspiracy theories? – adam.r Mar 31 '14 at 00:07
  • @adam.r Part of the reason I used that book was that it was referred to me by no less than three optometrists via the site justanswer.com. – Questioner Mar 31 '14 at 04:44
  • @Dave: We have established that the **definition of optometrist is different in different countries**, making the question region-specific; I chose the USA because it seemed that's where your references were largely based. I think this question is currently unclear. – Oddthinking Mar 31 '14 at 06:32
  • 1
    @Oddthinking, I don't see why (for example) "In the USA optometry has credible science, but in Britain it is not as credible..." wouldn't be a helpful, useful, and informative answer, in direct response to the question, which I think is quite clear. So far, everything I've learned about optometry and it's different international interpretations, are things I have learned *after* and *because of* asking. I think the standard of clarity being applied here precludes the very nature and purpose of asking questions at all. – Questioner Mar 31 '14 at 09:06
  • @Oddthinking Another interpretation is that the region-specific nature of the definition of optometry would warrant it being addressed in an answer, rather than limiting the question. –  Apr 03 '14 at 17:22

1 Answers1

7

Optometry appears to have a scientific foundation. While I am in no position to evaluate the claims made by Optometrists, I can see that Optometry has the same institutional structure as science-based medicine (e.g. Ophthalmology); in fact, many major research universities have Schools of Optometry that conduct research.

For instance:

  1. UC Berkeley
  2. SUNY
  3. Ohio State University

Optometrists have professional associations that publishes research journals in conjunction with major academic publishers:

These all claim to be "scientific peer-reviewed" publications.

The main difference between Ophthalmologists and Optometrists is that Ophthalmologists are Medical Doctors (i.e. M.D.). This distinction is based on the degree and focus of training, not any perceived illegitimacy of Optometrists. My impression is that the distinction between them is similar to the distinction between Psychologists (i.e. therapists) and Psychiatrists.

Academically, Optometrists have the O.D. degree (Doctor of Optometry). These are treated as respected, but lesser degrees by Ophthalmologists. Ophthalmologists regularly work alongside Optometrists, as at the UPMC Eye Center.

Note, there may be some confusion between the O.D. degree and the D.O degree (Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine). I tend to hear the charge of pseudoscience leveled at the D.O. more than at the O.D.

adam.r
  • 1,411
  • 14
  • 19
  • Thank you for this description - The psychologist/psychiatrist comparison was the most helpful for me in determining the difference between optometrists and ophthalmologists. – Questioner Mar 31 '14 at 04:47