[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
January 10, 1920


Author Affiliations


JAMA. 1920;74(2):121-122. doi:10.1001/jama.1920.02620020053032

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor:  —The admirable article of Dr. Frederick Peterson (The Journal, Dec. 6, 1919, p. 1737) is so clearly and entertainingly written and, on the whole, so sane and strong, that a certain error in it might, if not corrected, tend to do much harm by misleading practicing physicians. I refer to the implied condemnation of the prescription of glasses for the remedy of certain reflex nervous disturbances by the relief of eye strain. In his reasoning, the gifted author strangely seems to have fallen into the fallacy termed by logicians "non sequitur."One might, for example, argue in this fashion:Freudian psychanalysis is ill founded and repulsive.Freudian psychanalysis is advocated by certain neurologists.Ergo, all neurologists are untrustworthy.But it is quite evident that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The correct conclusion is: Those neurologists who advocate freudian psychanalysis are mistaken, and not to

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview