第1个回答 2012-09-03
如果，虹膜检测仪的理论基础是虹膜学，那么，我们就要知道什么是虹膜学，虹膜学是不是有理论基础。
虹膜学的百度百科：“虹膜学是全息理论的一种,由于虹膜能准确的反映身体组织的质量评估。”
然而虹膜识别的百度百科称：“虹膜的形成由遗传基因决定，人体基因表达决定了虹膜的形态、生理、颜色和总的外观。 到二岁左右，虹膜就基本上发育到了足够尺寸，进入了相对稳定的时期。除非极少见的反常状况、身体或精神上大的创伤造成虹膜外观上的改变外，虹膜形貌可以保持数十年没有多少变化。”
也就是说，一般情况下，虹膜和指纹是一样的，是不太会变化，并且，即使变化，幅度也是轻微的。所以可以运用于生物识别。
如果，虹膜识别和指纹识别，是科学的话，那么，基于虹膜改变或者是大改变（比如坑洞的说法）的虹膜诊断的，从逻辑上，是很难说通的。
显然，虹膜识别和指纹识别具有科学的经验性和实践性。
虹膜学得百度百科中没有对虹膜学的批评，但在基维百科中有：“Criticism
The majority of medical doctors reject all the claims of all branches of iridology and label them as pseudoscience or even quackery.[8]
Critics, including most practitioners of medicine, dismiss iridology given that published studies have indicated a lack of success for its claims. To date, clinical data do not support correlation between illness in the body and coinciding observable changes in the iris. In controlled experiments,[3] practitioners of iridology have performed statistically no better than chance in determining the presence of a disease or condition solely through observation of the iris.
It has been pointed out that the premise of iridology is at odds with the fact that the iris does not undergo substantial changes in an individual's life. Iris texture is a phenotypical feature that develops during gestation and remains unchanged after birth. There is no evidence for changes in the iris pattern other than variations in pigmentation in the first year of life and variations caused by glaucoma treatment. The stability of iris structures is the foundation of the biometric technology which uses iris recognition for identification purposes.[9][10]
[edit]Scientific research into iridology
Well-controlled scientific evaluation of iridology has shown entirely negative results, with all rigorous double blind tests failing to find any statistical significance to its claims.
In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, three iridologists incorrectly identified kidney disease in photographs of irises and often disagreed with each other. The researchers concluded: "iridology was neither selective nor specific, and the likelihood of correct detection was statistically no better than chance."[11]
Another study was published in the British Medical Journal which selected 39 patients who were due to have their gall bladder removed the following day, because of suspected gallstones. He also selected a group of people who did not have diseased gall bladders to act as a control. A group of 5 iridologists examined a series of slides of both groups' irises. The iridologists could not correctly identify which patients had gall bladder problems and which had healthy gall bladders. For example, one of the iridologists diagnosed 49% of the patients with gall stones as having them and 51% as not having them. Dr Knipschild concluded:, "...this study showed that iridology is not a useful diagnostic aid." Iridologists defended themselves and attacked the study's methodology.[12]
Edzard Ernst raised the question in 2000: "Does iridology work? [...] This search strategy resulted in 77 publications on the subject of iridology. [...] All of the uncontrolled studies and several of the unmasked experiments suggested that iridology was a valid diagnostic tool. The discussion that follows refers to the 4 controlled, masked evaluations of the diagnostic validity of iridology. [...] In conclusion, few controlled studies with masked evaluation of diagnostic validity have been published. None have found any benefit from iridology."[3]
”