[Fred.]

On Aug 17, 12:49*pm, bob wrote:
On Aug 16, 9:47*pm, "Fred." wrote:

Later, we encountered a vision specialist who had found that a number
of pupils who had been thought to be dislexic, really weren't having
processing problems, but had very high contrast sensitiviy. *He had
ordered some lenses with 97% tint for one pupil. *He had to try
several manufacturers because most of them "knew" nobody could see
through such lenses. *During his presentation he passed a pair of the
lenses around the audience. *As expected, most of us, including me,
with contrast sensitivity mesuring in the 99th percentile, couldn't
see much, but one woman, looking a printed page though them,
exclaimed, "Wow, that's great", and proceeded to read off the page
with obvious pleasure.

So? You have proof that some people can see through such lenses. Was
there any published science claiming otherwise? I doubt it. So how is
this evidence of scientific generalities getting something wrong?

What we have in audio is a group of people who claim to be able to
read through a 97% tint, but who refuse to take an eye exam. If the
woman in your anecdote had said, "Yes, I can read through this," but
then refused to actually read anything aloud, would you have believed
her?

bob

I'm just suggesting that an open mind can be profitiable. Accepted,
published science is often correct, but also has a long history of
being just plain wrong about what is possible and what is not. Once
in a great while the obvious crackpot is correct.

Fred.