The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye


Dear Pramesh Rutaji.

Yes, when a scientific concept becomes excessively complex, then a
"simplifying" assumption can
help clear the air. For instance, checking the eye for its dynamic
behavior,
is easier that claiming that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the
eye's refractive STATE.

Enjoy,




OCCAM'S RAZOR.


Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle
attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar
William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any
phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating
those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the
explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in
Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of
succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem",
or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the
simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple
competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle
recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions
and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's
razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is
more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that
advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in
scientific theories.




On Apr 29, 7:24 pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> Mike Tyner wrote:
> > "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote
>
> >> What's worse: hypermetropia or myopia?
>
> > There's no answer without context.
>
> > What's worse: being too tall or being too short?
>
> > At my age, hyperopia would be worse. At your age, hyperopia might not even
> > matter.
>
> > In 16th-century China, the aristocratic families prized literacy and
> > intelligence, lived well into presbyopia, and successful clerics and
> > scholars had many concubines and children to pass on their myopia genes.
>
> > In 18th-century America, hunting and fighting and outdoor skills were
> > paramount. Not many lived past 40, and "defective vision" was something kept
> > hidden away in shame.
>
> > In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence.
>
> > Simple answers, like simple cures, do not always work.
>
> Occam's razor. http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's Razor
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you that the question lacked a framework.
>
> --
>
> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye

On Apr 29, 6:38 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:
> Dear Pramesh Rutaji.
>
> Yes, when a scientific concept becomes excessively complex, then a
> "simplifying" assumption can
> help clear the air. For instance, checking the eye for its dynamic
> behavior,
> is easier that claiming that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the
> eye's refractive STATE.

So ... why are YOU still a 6.00d myope?

I mean ... if your theory has any validity, then .....

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye


"Pramesh Rutaji" <p297tongue6221@newsguy,com > wrote

> Occam's razor.
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

I'm familiar with Sir William. There are huge ethnic differences to explain.

Fried rice and matzoh balls cause myopia. There - that's simple :).

-MT

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye

Dear Parmesh and Mike,

Mike mentions "Ethnic" difference???

Occam's statement was a scientific concept. Not about "Ethnic", and
this bit about "matzoh balls" implies somthing about
religion. Mike seems to be "lost" in this discussion of
fundamental SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS -- and their development.
Further, Occam it is not even about "medicine" -- in
any sense of the word.

Perhaps Mike can explain what he means about
Occam and his concept about being "Ethnic".

Enjoy,



I'm familiar with Sir William. There are huge ethnic differences to
explain.

Fried rice and matzoh balls cause myopia. There - that's simple :).


-MT




On Apr 29, 7:24 pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> Mike Tyner wrote:
> > "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote
>
> >> What's worse: hypermetropia or myopia?
>
> > There's no answer without context.
>
> > What's worse: being too tall or being too short?
>
> > At my age, hyperopia would be worse. At your age, hyperopia might not even
> > matter.
>
> > In 16th-century China, the aristocratic families prized literacy and
> > intelligence, lived well into presbyopia, and successful clerics and
> > scholars had many concubines and children to pass on their myopia genes.
>
> > In 18th-century America, hunting and fighting and outdoor skills were
> > paramount. Not many lived past 40, and "defective vision" was something kept
> > hidden away in shame.
>
> > In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence.
>
> > Simple answers, like simple cures, do not always work.
>
> Occam's razor. http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's Razor
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you that the question lacked a framework.
>
> --
>
> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye


<otisbrown@embarqmail,com > wrote

>Perhaps Mike can explain what he means about
>Occam and his concept about being "Ethnic".

What are you ranting about?

Let's dumb it down just for you...

How would William of Ockham explain the high prevalence of myopia among
urban Asians and Hassidic Jews?

My answer was flippant - fried rice and matzoh.

Your answer - wearing glasses makes them nearsighted.

-MT

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye


How would William of Ockham explain the high prevalence of myopia
among
urban Asians and Hassidic Jews?


My answer was flippant - fried rice and matzoh.


Otis> As most of your answers are -- when the questions involved
fundamental science.

Otis> Or you always misconstrue the question -- and insult the person
asking the question. What else is new?

Enjoy,







On Apr 30, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> <otisbr...@embarqmail,com > wrote
>
> >Perhaps Mike can explain what he means about
> >Occam and his concept about being "Ethnic".
>
> What are you ranting about?
>
> Let's dumb it down just for you...
>
> How would William of Ockham explain the high prevalence of myopia among
> urban Asians and Hassidic Jews?
>
> My answer was flippant - fried rice and matzoh.
>
> Your answer - wearing glasses makes them nearsighted.
>
> -MT

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye

Oh, Otis. You're such a TOOL!

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye

On 28 Apr, 23:24, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote
>
> > What's worse: hypermetropia or myopia?
>
> There's no answer without context.
>
> What's worse: being too tall or being too short?

Too short, because if you're too tall then you can just bend down and
get smaller, but if you're smaller you can't 'bend upwards' and get
taller. And tall people can reach higher things, which is a more
useful human ability than being able to crouch and go through small
holes, since humans aren't the type of animal that needs to conceal
itself in order to survive. Also, taller people are more likely to
reproduce because girls will be attracted, so nature must have
intended successful man to be tall and unsuccessful man to be short.

> At my age, hyperopia would be worse. At your age, hyperopia might not even
> matter.

Howcome?

>In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence.

Really? Why?

>Simple answers, like simple cures, do not always work.

But lots of the time they do, and when they don't work, it's because
you're overcomplicating, hehe. All things genius are essentially very
simple in their core, don't you think.

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye


"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote

>> What's worse: being too tall or being too short?
>
> Too short, because if you're too tall then you can just bend down and
> get smaller, but if you're smaller you can't 'bend upwards' and get
> taller. And tall people can reach higher things, which is a more
> useful human ability than being able to crouch and go through small
> holes, since humans aren't the type of animal that needs to conceal
> itself in order to survive. Also, taller people are more likely to
> reproduce because girls will be attracted, so nature must have
> intended successful man to be tall and unsuccessful man to be short.

Wrong answer. The correct answer is "it depends."

>> At my age, hyperopia would be worse. At your age, hyperopia might not
>> even
>> matter.
>
> Howcome?

At your age, 2-diopter hyperopes often have no symptoms at all. At my age,
2-D hyperopes can't see anything without glasses.

>>In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence.
>
> Really? Why?

Pol Pot attempted to reduce Cambodia to an agrarian society.

>>Simple answers, like simple cures, do not always work.
>
> But lots of the time they do, and when they don't work, it's because
> you're overcomplicating, hehe. All things genius are essentially very
> simple in their core, don't you think.

If you don't think physiology is complicated, then you don't know any
physiology.

-MT

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye

On 9 May, 18:49, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote
>
> >> What's worse: being too tall or being too short?
>
> > Too short, because if you're too tall then you can just bend down and
> > get smaller, but if you're smaller you can't 'bend upwards' and get
> > taller. And tall people can reach higher things, which is a more
> > useful human ability than being able to crouch and go through small
> > holes, since humans aren't the type of animal that needs to conceal
> > itself in order to survive. Also, taller people are more likely to
> > reproduce because girls will be attracted, so nature must have
> > intended successful man to be tall and unsuccessful man to be short.
>
> Wrong answer. The correct answer is "it depends."
>
> >> At my age, hyperopia would be worse. At your age, hyperopia might not
> >> even
> >> matter.
>
> > Howcome?
>
> At your age, 2-diopter hyperopes often have no symptoms at all. At my age,
> 2-D hyperopes can't see anything without glasses.

That's interesting. So would that mean that dioptres often means very
little in terms of subjective vision? And why is that? What are the
other factors apart from dioptres that cause poor vision?

> >>In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence.
>
> > Really? Why?
>
> Pol Pot attempted to reduce Cambodia to an agrarian society.

Who's Pol Pot? And why did he want an agrarian society?
And why do you use the word 'reduce'? Do you think lowly of agrarian
societies? Wikipedia says that: Agrarianism is a social and political
philosophy which stresses the viewpoint that the cultivation of
plants, or farming leads to a fuller and happier life. -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian (profession). What's bad about that?

>
> >>Simple answers, like simple cures, do not always work.
>
> > But lots of the time they do, and when they don't work, it's because
> > you're overcomplicating, hehe. All things genius are essentially very
> > simple in their core, don't you think.
>
> If you don't think physiology is complicated, then you don't know any
> physiology.
>
> -MT

I think the idea of 'complicated' is a delusion that creates a barrier
to higher knowledge. There's only a simple thing, or many simple
things combined together, but in my book there's no such thing as
complicated. Would you agree, or not, and why?

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye

If you truly demonstrated even a HINT of intellectual curiosity ....
you'd get a book ... or two ... or do at least SOME measure of
independent inquiry.

The only difference between you NOW and you a month ago is that you're
becoming more forthcoming about all the things you don't know.

Go learn something. That's why there are libraries (or well-selected
online resources).

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye

On 9 May, 21:14, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> If you truly demonstrated even a HINT of intellectual curiosity ....
> you'd get a book ... or two ... or do at least SOME measure of
> independent inquiry.
>
> The only difference between you NOW and you a month ago is that you're
> becoming more forthcoming about all the things you don't know.
>
> Go learn something. That's why there are libraries (or well-selected
> online resources).

I have been to my local library a few times but it seemed completely
devoid of any books that focused specifically on ophthalmology or
vision related information. Please could you recommend a good book to
me that is easy to understand (for a layman) and one that you found
helpful. Or could you give me a link to an online bookstore with this
stuff.

I don't want to learn about anatomy, it's too boring and I always fall
asleep. I want one that just has laconic and blunt information and
interesting studies and other general trivia that I can learn to
improve my general knowledge. If you know of any, please be kind and
tell me.

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye

Zetsu wrote:
> On 9 May, 18:49, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
>> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote

>>>> In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence.
>>> Really? Why?
>> Pol Pot attempted to reduce Cambodia to an agrarian society.
>
> Who's Pol Pot?

Rent the movie, "The killing fields".

--

Pramesh Rutaji

p297tongue6221@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply

Re: The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye

On 9 May, 22:53, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> Zetsu wrote:
> > On 9 May, 18:49, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> >> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote
> >>>> In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence.
> >>> Really? Why?
> >> Pol Pot attempted to reduce Cambodia to an agrarian society.
>
> > Who's Pol Pot?
>
> Rent the movie, "The killing fields".
>
> --
>
> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply

OK, I'll rent that movie. It's not horror is it? I get scared from
horror movies.

-- deleted messages --