|
|
sci.med.vision |
On Mar 30, 7:50 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Actually, debate often leads to intellectual progress. > >This is Dr. Bates' statement about his reason for his > Actually, Dr. Bates opposed the use of a minus lens on ANY eyes. > >From Chapter 8 by Dr. Bates > Actually, Dr. Bates was describing the effect of ANY lenses. Minus > You are twisting his words, Otis! > Can't you just stick to Dr Raphaelson and leave poor Dr. Bates alone?
> >Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar -- and what a nice story. is there any proof for this? published reports,
> >often convincing.
> It's true that arguments can divide people, but arguments help people
> to know where they stand and to make an analysis of the scenario. If
> there were never any arguments, one may deduce that everyone has the
> same opinion on everything. What kind of a world would it be if
> everyone agreed on everything? Boring
> >opposing the use of a minus lens on an eye that is slightly
> >nearsighted.
> Slightly nearsighted or very nearsighted is not relevant.
> >(Clarifying statement added -- minus lens)
> >That (minus-lens) glasses must injure the eye is evident
> lens, plus lens, astigmatic corrective lens, etc. He was impartial on
> what kind of lens is in use, but stated that they are ALL detrimental
> to the sight.
> Imagine how much he is suffering right now in his grave knowing how
> his statements have been corrupted with wrong interpretation! Gosh!
independent verification, publication in peer-reviewed journals? Or
is it just supposition? it just SOUNDS like is has to be right. Too
bad you have to prove it, and when various researchers have looked at
various aspects of this (intentionally using overminusing, using no
spectacles at all, etc.) there appears to be no detrimental effects of
using glasses-- they just help people see better.