optometry sucks

checkout great discussion group on yahoo groups

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/optometrysucks/

 

wrote in

I took the bait. Quite amusing.

DrG

 

Interesting the "focus" of their discussion.

Recommended reading for all on this group.

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

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

(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.

DrG

 

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.

Best,

Otis
Person who asks questions.

 

(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.

DrG

 

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.

Best,

Otis
Engieer

 

(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?

DrG

 

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.

Best,

Otis

 

(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.

DrG

 

(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

 

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.

Enjoy,

Otis

 

(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