Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

In a lot of situations, yes. Take for example a condition that often results from strokes in which the person is unable to see the left half of their visual field. By unable to see I don't mean there is a blackness in that half of their visual field, I mean that it is absent from consciousness entirely, as if leftness didn't exist. This leads to odd behaviors, from not eating the left half of a plate of food to wearing clothes on only half their body. They are guiding their behavior according to a misinformed perception of the environment. This misperception will almost certainly lead to detrimental behaviors that a blind person would not need to worry about.

When it comes to behavior and perception. My position is that no sensory information is better that misleading sensory information. It is better for you to not see the knife on the table, than to see it as an edible fruit.

It is not misleading, it is imperfect sensory information. And BTW, eating "Half a plate" is better than not eating at all when you are in the jungle. Your comparation is not in point at all. 
And also you need to know that evolution is not about perfection, it is about fucking and eating( simply put).

I'm positive most blind people can, and often do, eat an entire plate of food; surely that is better than eating half a plate.

Misleading is the appropriate term, not imperfect. Given that behavior is "lead" by perception, a wrongly processed sensation is able to mislead behavior. Seeing imperfectly is not the same as seeing wrongly.