Arrowman

Something I read the other day -

As we all know, researchers are working on various forms of security systems which make use of unique body features, such as fingerprints, instead of ID cards, PIN codes etc.

One of these techniques uses the eye - it is based on the fact that every human being has a unique iris pattern - like a fingerprint - which does not change from day to day.

The uniqueness and consistency of the iris pattern is not in doubt; just the 100% reliable (and economical) technology needs to be developed.

Iridology, on the other hand, is based on the belief that iris patterns do change, in visible ways, depending on the state of health of the person - and that specific health conditions can be diagnosed from changes in the iris pattern.

Only one of these theories (security vs iridology) can be true; they are mutually exclusive.

So next time you're talking to your iridologist ask them to explain how the security researchers are so misguided in their fallacious belief that iris patterns don't change

echidna

I dunno, don’t they also look for localised dilation & unusual behaviour of the blood vessels ?

Even doctors can indirectly check some medical conditions by checking the condition of the eye. My hep A (that’s the non-STD one) 10 years ago was picked when my eyes became jaundiced.

I think the eye is the only visible part of our brain ... not that I'm a fan of iridology BTW.

Arrowman

Fair points, echidna - I was thinking similar things myself.

However:

(I'm talking to the lurkers and iridologists here - acknowledging your "not that I'm a fan of iridology" disclaimer.)

- jaundice is a mainstream recognised indicator.
- localised dilation and blood vessels? Obviously recognisable indicators but I don't know enough about the field to know how reliable they are as indicators of specific conditions.

But even if it were true (which I doubt) that dilation and blood vessels were reliable indicators of anything more than a general malaise, the question remains about iris patterns themselves.

It's a bit like Naturopathy - the fact that some natural remedies may have some benefit does not validate the entire field including all its more wacky beliefs.

And the possibility that one might be able to diagnose a specific condition via the condition of blood vessels does not validate the idea that iris patterns change in a manner which is both visible and significant. (Because if they did, all those security researchers are barking up the wrong tree.)

A few months ago my local pharmacy advertised that an iridologist would be giving free consultations on site. I made a mild and polite protest to the assistant who served me, pointing out that this might not be a very good way of enhancing the professional reputation of the pharmacy. She was very embarrassed, actually, and could only "blame head office - it wasn't our idea".

echidna

I’m a bit split on the various naturopathies myself. 2 things in their favour, IMO, that maybe there are some unusual interactions which a reductionist approach overlooks, and that in the mind-body dichotomy, there is significant value to the placebo effect. When a friend of mine died prematurely to cancer, her own medical training as a GP had no scruples in selecting both an oncologist and a cooperative naturopath to help her and her family until she passed away.

Quacks and frauds in both camps sad to say.

One of the last sane

Jaundice shows up in the white of the eye (which turns yellow) not in the iris.