Talk:Bates method/Archive 16

Non-English sources

Here's a book written in Russian. [1] Not sure yet about the source's quality per WP:RS, but if it is we should definitely try to use it. This would help internationalize the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Love to help, but my Russian is a bit rusty ;-) Famousdog (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Google gives us an approximate translation. Having now read some of it I kind of doubt that it would be considered WP:RS, but it's still a useful External Link if nothing else. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Negative accommodation"

This paper should definitely be used in the article. Not quite sure yet exactly how. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The authors present a model of how negative accomodation ("flashes of clear vision") could occur. There is no evidence that it does occur. They conclude that they hope to present empirical data to support their model, so it might be worth checking out the recent publications of the authors to see if they have. It would be sensible to use this paper to support the argument from pseudomyopia and any claims that "flashes of clear vision" are rare. In fact, I would use their statement that "reports concerning negative accommodation are dated, sparse, contradictory, and largely anecdotal" verbatim! Famousdog (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Educational or therapeutic?

I've reverted some edits by 62.131.0.243 which cast the Bates method as educational and not therapeutic.[2] I've asked him to come to this page and explain the source for this radical change in our article. --TS 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm running an SPI; this may be Seeyou (who's under an ArbComm siteban - remedy). SPI could only track the country, most part unrelated. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To run an SPI at this stage is a bad breach of WP:AGF. The edits are such as might be made by many interested people. TS is right to ask for sources, but in fact they exist. I'm puzzled by the implication of TS's phrase "our article". Does this exclude 62.131.0.243, or me for that matter? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not if all the IP's edits are specifically to Bates method, Samuel. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

He's made essentially a single edit. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I will assume good faith unless and until I see good reason to suppose otherwise. Wikipedia policy requires you to do the same. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is Seeyou, his/her command of standard English has improved considerably. I agree that it's best for the time being to assume that it's not Seeyou. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Precisely so. Apart from that, I'm somewhat concerned about Tony Sidaway's remarks above. The fact that the Bates method is educational rather than therapeutic was established in a court of law in 1941, and is known to everyone who understands the method. If TS finds this to be a "radical change in our article", there's something badly wrong with the article. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're probably referring to a California case in 1941 in which Margaret Darst Corbett was sued under the Medical Practice Act and got off because the court accepted her testimony that the technique improved eyesight by "teaching the eyes to shift." A surprise court verdict isn't a sound basis on which to found an encyclopedia article. --TS 11:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to that verdict. For you to call it "surprise" is mere abuse, but does not undermine its validity. The fact that BM is educational is confirmed by dozens of books on the subject. Are you willing to accept them as a "sound basis"? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent)This edit [3] by anonymous IP user 62.131.0.243 looks very similar to the edits that first brought me into contact with Seeyou, way back in 2007... The insistance that the BM is an "educational program" is a tactic that allows Bates "teachers" to get away with practicing eyecare while not being qualified vision specialists. In practice, it is a "therapy". If this user is not Seeyou, who has been banned for his activities on these pages, then I apologise and suggest to the new user that he/she read the case against Seeyou in order to avoid repeating his mistakes. Famousdog (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

.. and Sam, don't go playing the victim by claiming "abuse" when a few posts ago you say "the fact that the Bates method is educational ... is known to everyone who understands the method." Clearly implying that anybody suggesting otherwise doesn't understand it. Famousdog (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As you know, I'm fully familiar with Seeyou's case, and I supported the ban. I see no evidence that this user is Seeyou. As PSWG observed above, the edit doesn't have any of his distinctive style. I repeat that WP:AGF requires us not to jump to that conclusion.

The 1941 jury acquitted Margaret Corbett, having been presented with all the evidence in her case. TS could have written "a court verdict with which I disagree", which would have been a fair way of putting it. To say "a surprise verdict" is to turn a disagreeement into an insult.

"Clearly implying that anybody suggesting otherwise doesn't understand it." - That's right. If you want to understand anything, however much you disagree with it, it is necessary to run the risk of sharing its mind-set. You're so convinced that BM is totally wrong that you have to think BM enthusiasts are all fools. Could I suggest you read and ponder Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

glasses do improve vision?

"A burning-glass being used to focus sunlight on someone's eye, from Perfect Sight Without Glasses... This is a joke, right?--TeakHoken91.33.14.206 (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rant

This article is factually wrong about the Bates method. It gives the impression that Bates meant vision could improve by doing exercises or using techniques. This is plain and simply wrong. This is correct: The Bates method is about improving vision by seeing correctly. The techniques (apart from sunning) are NOT MEANT TO MAKE YOU SEE CORRECTLY (!). They are meant to make you UNDERSTAND HOW to see correctly. This is a very significant difference. It can be compared to a maths book: if you show an difficult equation with an explanation to a five-year old and asks him to copy it, we will be able to copy it, but he will not be able to unstand it any better. It's the same with the Bates techniques: anyone can do them, but THEY DON'T MAGICALLY MAKE YOU SEE BETTER. Just as a maths book they are ONLY intended to make you understand the subject. Then, when you understand the subject, you can see better or solve the equation. The techniques are not correct vision, they are a tool to understand correct vision. But if you don't try to understand and just do the techniques you can't possibly improve your vision.

This can be understood by reading the orginial book of Bates or "Relearning to see" by Thomas Quackenbush.

Also of interest, exposure to the sun, which Bates said would improve eyesight, has recently been shown to prevent myopia in children: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/4140371/Spending-time-in-sun-can-prevent-children-becoming-short-sighted.html --80.202.30.250 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So this article is "wrong" about the BM because you know better than everybody else, eh? Why don't you trawl through the 16+ archived pages of discussion on this page to see where your argument falls down. But in short: What's "correct" vision? What counts as "improvement"? How do you measure a patients "understanding" of vision? Bates left all of these questions (and more) helpfully unanswered, and quacks like Quackenbush still haven't clearly answered them after 100 years. This is a failing of the Bates method and its proponents, not medicine, not science, and not Wikipedia.

In reference to that study you cite: How can you be sure its sunlight that is beneficial and not the increased depth of field available outside? Or the increased physical activity? Hmm? Now sit down, calm down, and read those archived talk pages before making any more daft comments. Famousdog (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by "80.202.30.250". This article is slanted, not horribly so, but it does approach strawman territory in its description of Bates's claims and it is not entirely balanced in its discussion of critical response to the idea of vision improvement. I am not suggesting there is intentional bias in the edits but the end result gives the reader a misleading impression. ProfGiles (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Study finds right mindset improves visual acuity

[4] [5]

How do we use this in the article? PSWG1920 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

How's it related? --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Only peripherally, in my opinion. They're talking about mental state temporarily improving your objective acuity (and there are several factors that could explain that result). The BM proclaims that lasting improvements can be obtained with practice. These are totally different claims. In addition, this is only one study and we should be wary of reporting findings with such a small evidence-base. Famousdog (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

visionsofjoy.com

Given the incipient edit-war over this source, I have asked for input at the reliable sources noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! This url has been discussed before. Guess it's time to do so again. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the previous discussion. Would you mind adding a link to it at RS/N? MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done! --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

visionsofjoy.org yet again

The relevant policies include WP:NOT (especially WP:NOTADVERTISING), WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE), and WP:V (especially WP:SPS).

Previous discussions can be found by searching for visionsofjoy in the talk archives and at RSN 16 Oct 2008 RSN 30 Jun 2010. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I wondered if it was worth asking that the URL be placed on the Spam blacklist. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know there was one. Yes. Please. There are many, many edits in article history featuring the (quite valid) removal of this site from various portions of the article. Famousdog (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK< added it at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#visionsofjoy.com - assume this will be added to the blacklist. If so, are there any other links to add to the blacklist? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Black listed

Visionsofjoy.com has been black listed - please see here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2011

Well, here we are, almost 100 years later, and the anecdotes have never stopped coming. What did the eminent Dr. Bates notice, discover, and know, and why has it been impossible to completely repress it? Dr. Bates realized that normal eyesight has to do with more than just the eyeball: "Stress" he called it, in an era of psychological infancy. Stress - a psychological condition, still largely disregarded, dismissed and disparaged by the hard science community. The same community that dismissed, disregarded and disparaged the concept of germs. The same community that only recently has grudgingly admitted the possiblity of a condition called post-traumatic stress disorder. Here are some facts: JMartinC4 (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's nice -- the Bates method might possibly be able to help some people some of the time, but it's not the Big Answer to most people's vision problems, and does not make glasses/contacts obsolete. AnonMoos (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”. And you failed to post your “facts”. Appropriate. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 21:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)