My metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology is all discombobulated now—Dave has found an artificial enhancement of the spectacle perch that implies that perhaps this is not the best of all possible worlds.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Can I tell you how boring I find the fine-tuning argument? Paul Davies is the latest to use it and in the NYT no less. Davies' argument depends on whether you believe his initial assertion that science fundamentally rests on faith:
The problem with this neat separation into "non-overlapping…
Reposted from the old TfK because it's fun.
In KU's introductory biology lab about evolution, the students are asked (not my phrasing):
In the vertebrate animal clade, jaws have evolved from cartilage-like rods associated with gills. In jawless ancestral vertebrates, as well as extant jawless…
... sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler – Robert Frost
It was a typical hot and humid summer's day, so I entered a nice dark bluestone pub, hoping the dark would offer some cool and beer. As it was about 11 in the morning, the bar was empty save for one fellow sitting at a table…
Pseudoscience is effective. If it weren't, people wouldn't generate so much of it to try to justify opinions not supported by the bulk of the evidence. It's effective because people trust science as a method of understanding the world, and ideological actors want that trust conferred to their…
The best of all possible eyeglasses are the lenses we already have in our eyeballs. Ideally, they adjust focal length when appropriate without our even having to think about it, and they don't require any breakable external devices, uncomfortable cornea-contacting plastics or messy laser surgeries. The fact that they fail so often is pretty damning evidence that this is not in fact the best of all possible worlds. As is pretty much everything else in existence.
Speaking of which, I still can't quite wrap my mind around the ending of Candide. It seems a little too pessimistic, even for a dyed-in-the-wool pessimist like me.
When I first saw this, I thought it was going to be about bionic fish - along the lines of adding spines to sticklebacks (or perhaps something PZ might to do enhance a danio...)
As for pierced glasses, I am somewhat put off by the idea of "permanently" affixing something that large and extensive that is subject to getting hit or caught by stationary objects while I am moving, or moving objects while I am stationary (hair (mine or someone else's), hats, passing trees, etc)
Eh, I don't know if you have trouble with things hitting your specs while you're wearing them, Theo, but I tend to find that they're more likely to get damaged when I'm not wearing mine. Trampled at discos, chewed by babies, just plain sat on. I find that the wetware for protecting one's eyes works just fine for protecting glasses.
That said, a gust of wind once blew a wasp behind one of my lenses, which stung me in the cheek before I could release it. But that could as easily have happened with a piercing-mounted pair.
Hey cool!
I was toying this idea a while back, trying to figure out how a dog would wear glasses. It came down to prescription goggles, a Star Wars-like "Over the head" design which I saw only once, or that sort of piercing through the muzzle.
I was partly wondering if the other side would have to be clipped to eyebrow piercings to keep them in place, but I guess not.
Theo doesn't usually wear lenses (one of the lucky people who didn't go myopic at adolescence, and only needs close-up glasses). But as a regular wearer, I'll echo the concern about having them ripped off -- I'd want an engineered failure point in the mounting, which would let go before the pain threshold of the nose was reached (that, and I'm squeamish re piercings in the first place). My other problem with the idea is that I haven't yet found a single pair of lenses that do the job for me under all conditions -- I own two pairs of bi-focals, one distance-only pair (for long drives), and I use my naked eyes for the computer. And wearing the wrong optics for the situation drives me nuts.
Ouch!, is right.
I do a lot of outdoors stuff, including cycling, skiing, or even mowing the lawn. In the bike bike crashes I've had, my cycling glasses have been damaged or destroyed once or twice. While mowing the lawn, I've had them flung off by branches. Also in riding, I get allergies at certain times of year, and my instinct is to pull off the glasses and rub my eyes to "get the red out"; I don't think I could overcome that instict, nor would I want to.
Hiking, cycling, walking, skiing, mowing... This is basically the worst idea possible for me.
But, my biggest problem is still this: Those are some hideous brackets.
How do these people take their glasses off to shower? With a screwdriver??
Eeeewww.
Related: The optimists believe we live in the best of all possible worlds. Us pessimists are afraid the optimists are right.
LM Wanderer
Wonder how easy it would be for them to fog up while scuba diving?
I'm holding out for a cosmetic keratotomy.
I too was disappointed to find that "spectacle perch" was not a kind of fish.
I'm not sure why people find this business of eyeglass attachment so fascinating. I saw the story in Yahoo science headlines and a co-worker emailed about it later. It's very mildly amusing, but not a major advance of any kind.
In the news: Lloyd Bentsen is dead
Bentsen is best known for his vice presidential debate with Dan "Potatoe" Quayle, in which Quayle compared himself to JFK and Bentsen responded: "Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy. I served with Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
In those debates, Quayle confused the ozone hole with global warming, but no blogs existed at the time so he didn't receive appropriate amounts of criticism for his ignorance.
But what do the optometrists believe?
Are you sure that's a perch and not a bass?
This is interesting. Google reveals that the spectacle perch is not a fish at all; it is type of bird.
Now to google "tit mouse."
OuchOuchOuchOuchOuchOuchOuch...
Eeeeeeek! Given that I tend to smush my face in my pillow when I sleep, that would be ouch city for me, whether the lenses are detachable from the brackets or not. Youch. And what about clip-on sunglasses? I would think the tension from those would hurt....
'My metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology is all discombobulated'
You should put that on a t-shirt :-)