RM asks the wrong questions -- and always ingores the correct answers.

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, Nov 15, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear RM,

    Subject: Optometry and Fundamental Science

    Actually it was an optometrist who lectured ME that
    created the greatest impression -- on the
    need to separate issues of pure-science and
    scientific fact -- from "medicine".
    I personally never "mix" the two professions
    and subject matter.

    RM> Otis, I never said the anything in my posts about the correlations between
    Otis> Thanks for your honesty. Perhaps we can move forward
    on that point. You have no interest in a mathematical
    representation of the inate behavior of the natural
    eye -- and that is indeed my starting point.
    This is indeed a "paradigm" based argument.
    Further, by restricting my analysis as per
    above, we can not conflict -- unless improper
    words are used to describe what we measure.

    RM> By the way Otis, I and everyone else who reads this newsgroup is undoubtedly
    Otis> Thank you. But as you know -- I want to
    help pilots (who have the same skills) work on
    true-prevention, by understanding the fact
    that the eye's refractive status is correlated
    to their average visual environment. That
    would place responsibility for "control" on
    them, for their own personal understanding
    and direct action.

    But the eye is composed of
    Otis> It depends on who is demanding an "explanation".
    When Galileo set up the equation V = a t, it was argued that
    while the equation was accurate in predicting the
    balistic path of a cannon ball -- it did
    not "explain" anything. It depends on
    the nature of the goal you are working towards.

    Otis> That depends on the INTENT of the author! Since my
    advocacy was for my onw "blood relatives", I rather doubt
    that I was attempting to "baffle them". The intent
    was to provide them with a "fighting chance" at prevention.
    Further, the goal (for me) was to make certain that
    this recommendation by Dr. Raphaelson, Dr. Colgate
    and Dr. Grosvenor was absolutly safe. (A major
    concern.) The plus is safe. Your argument it
    that is is NOT EFFECTIVE in the role of true-prevention.
    My argument is the the plus must be used with
    GREAT FORCE to be effective in prevention. And that
    has to do with the mathematical model -- in predicting
    the results of "correct use" of a plus, among those
    who have the motivation for it.

    But this work would mean a "tutorial" on these
    issues to pilots entering a four year college -- who
    would learn as much as they could -- before
    any preventive work was started.

    I would expect reasonable success. But FIRST I
    need to talk to them.

    As a pilot, and student I think that I would
    understand them -- and their point of view
    as they work to resolve a "world-class" problem.

    It would be an intellectual challenge -- and
    I think they would rise to the occasions:

    1. For the challenge of it.

    2. They would clear their vision to
    the required leagal standard and
    would be doing major scientific (not medical)

    The function of leadership it to train leaders -- not followers.


    Otis Brown, Nov 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Like I said: No proof.


    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 19, 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.