optometry sucks

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by optometrysucks, Feb 8, 2004.

  1. optometrysucks, Feb 8, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. optometrysucks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 8, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. optometrysucks

    Otis Brown Guest

    Interesting the "focus" of their discussion.

    Recommended reading for all on this group.

    We all must earn money to live. Their
    comments are profound.


    Otis Brown, Feb 9, 2004
  4. optometrysucks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    I doubt that I will ever participate on that forum, but signed-up out of
    curiosity. Please be informed that as a result, I have received two emails
    from Otis to the members of that forum. This prompted me to block future
    emails from Otis, the Engineer.

    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 9, 2004
  5. optometrysucks

    Otis Brown Guest

    Thank you. If you do not enjoy learning,
    shut out the message.

    I used to wonder why I never got any
    "straight answers" to honest questions -- only
    evasions. Now I know why.


    Person who asks questions.
    Otis Brown, Feb 10, 2004
  6. optometrysucks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Some people wouldn't recognize a straight answer if it hit them between the
    eyes like a perfectly plane two-by-four.

    As Mike has said, the only answers that get through your "filter" are the
    one's you agree with.

    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 10, 2004
  7. optometrysucks

    Otis Brown Guest

    As we both know, pilots who start at 20/40, are
    able to clear their distant vision to 20/20.

    This is indeed a major effort for them, and
    obviously you are a big block to that process.

    I have posted Mike Tyner's commentary on my
    site, so the pilots can understand your
    point of view on prevention from that level.

    So be it.


    Otis Brown, Feb 10, 2004
  8. optometrysucks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Prove it.
    That's unfair and untrue.
    I'm sure the pilots are meeting in emergency conference as we speak to
    discuss this rather ominous sequence of events. By the way, how many
    pilots read your website, anyway?
    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 11, 2004
  9. optometrysucks

    Otis Brown Guest

    DrG> > Some people wouldn't recognize a straight answer if it hit them between the
    Probably more important is to learn to ask the staight question,
    and then find the staight answer in the experimental data
    itself. But this is much more a scientific approach
    than a "health" approach.

    Curious, but Mike is right -- however it again depends on
    the nature of the question you are prepared to ask.

    Ths "filter" would be in the "shift" in knowledge,
    (or paradigm shift) that results in better answers.

    But I would refer you to "The Structure of Scientific
    Revolutions" for the need to change the types of
    questions we are prepared to ask -- and
    the type of answer we will accept.


    Otis Brown, Feb 11, 2004
  10. optometrysucks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in

    Attempts at prevention have been around for as long as I can remember, and
    they are still ongoing. You just need bark up the right tree. You are off
    the scent.
    I think that Bates covered this ground sufficiently.

    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 11, 2004
  11. (Otis Brown) wrote in @posting.google.com:
    You keep invoking Kuhn as an excuse to abandon the scientific method, and I
    don't think Kuhn would agree.

    His idea was that scientific method eventually (or at least sometimes)
    produces a result that so contradicts the original model that you are
    forced to throw the model out. The method remains intact, and is in fact
    an important foundation to scientific revolution.

    Somehow, though, I don't see scientists two centuries in the future
    pointing to this discussion and describing it as a revolution.

    Scott Seidman, Feb 11, 2004
  12. optometrysucks

    Otis Brown Guest

    You talk with Thomas Kuhn a lot?

    I think he would agree with me -- that a "paradigm shift" is
    what we are taking about.

    In NO SENSE have I "abandoned" the scientific method -- as you
    so like to say.

    Indeed, many of the "first developments" of a new
    paradigm receive the type of condemnation you like
    to drop on me. I expect it from you, but other
    highly qualified scientists and physicists simply
    do not agree with you. (Jon, Stirling, Fracins Young, etc.)

    No, what he said that the advancement of science often
    depended in accepting a conceptual model (like Newton and
    Galileo and Kepler). Working with this concept, very
    powerful things were accomplished.

    Only after many years, were "failures" observed in the
    paradigm. Examples are Planck and Einstein.

    When they published there was a strong out-cry about
    "destroying" Newton's theory.

    In a similary way I accept most of the Kepler-Helmholtz
    concept of the eye. But in certain areas it
    does not accurately predict the behavior of
    that natural eye -- when the predictions of
    the theory are compared with direct-experimental data.

    The method remains intact, and is in fact
    Whose method?

    You must have missed Kuhn's chapter on the "invisibility"
    of revolutions. I would give you the chapter number,
    but I don't have the book with me right not.

    I will send you "evaluation" to other scientiests and
    physicists (Jon) for their commentary.


    Otis Brown, Feb 12, 2004
  13. (Otis Brown) wrote in @posting.google.com:
    No, merely studied him throughout a semester long graduate level History of
    Science course on scientific revolution.

    Scott Seidman, Feb 12, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.