Talk:Bates method/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Revert Ronz edit research by ophthalmology reverted into general research ?!

The revert it is about : [1]

Ronz, I don't understood why you reverted research by ophthalmology into general research. Can you explain ? Seeyou (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz's revert. The preceding subsection describes research into a specific phenomena (clear flashes), so the title "General research" makes a distinction. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets also no forget that "Research by ophthalmology" isn't grammatically or semantically correct. Ophthalmology is a field of research, not an individual or institute. It doesn't have a research program and doesn't conduct research itself. The correct format would be "Research by ophthalmologists" but that would necessitate everybody conducting research discussed in that section to be qualified as ophthalmolgists, whereas they may be optometrists, neuroscientists, psychophysicists, etc. "General research" is much better. Famousdog (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

opthamological research? - ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Zappernapper thank you. Seeyou (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The grammar is better, but I still think "General research" is a more suitable title for the subsection. First, because research into specific phenomena is discussed directly above it, hence the reason for the distinction. Also, as has been mentioned before by SamuelTheGhost and myself (I'm fairly sure ReTracer would agree as well), it seems very doubtful that most of the reviewed studies involved anything resembling Bates' method. "General research" reflects that uncertainly. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

... and although the research currently discussed in that section seems to have been carried out by ophthalmologists, the heading 'General research' leaves open the possibility that research from other fields (psychophysics, optometry, neuroscience, etc) could be added in the future. The question that I haven't seen addressed is why is Seeyou so concerned about this heading? Famousdog (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

i actually prefer "General research" for the reseasons stated by famousdog, but i was just being a smartass b/c i thought it funny that he earlier went on about grammar and the problems with certain fixes - completely forgetting the most obvious one. Of course i don't really think the word general is "more specific" (hehe) as someone suggested and there probably exists a better word, but of the two general is preferred. - ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No Original research should be present

See this link : [2] Seeyou (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem now, Seeyou? I am sick of having to constantly guess what you are hinting at! Famousdog (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

oh come on, it's such a fun game, and when we aren't playing it with one, we're playing with another... see - i can do it too! -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement text template : controversial method versus pseudo scientific concepts

The edits it is about : [3] Reverted : [[4]]

Ronz, Since you removed the controversial method template text. You should be the one to explain. But anyone who can provide a correct reference is welcome of course. I think it is about time a wikipedia authority is going to take a look at this article. Seeyou (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We already have The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (2000). Another is "Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education" Science & Education. Vol 3, number 4. October 1994. (Available in Science Education: Major Themes in Education Vol1. John K. Gilbert. 2006. ISBN 0415342260.) "For example, a biology text might consider critically the pseudoscientific theory of accommodation presented by Dr. Williams Bates in 1920 and contrast it with the theory of accommodation accepted by contemporary eye-physiologists." --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopia of pseudoscience is not a reliable source. Ophthalmology is. Can you provide a reliable sourced one. Also easy to verify by all of us. I have provided a very strong one above. [5]Labelling NVI as CONTROVERSIAL not as pseudo science. ( And easy to verify. And don't forget this article is about the BM and NATURAL VISION IMPROVEMENT ! This article contains still very clear ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Why does not the AAO link label the Bates method as pseudo Science ? Why is it almost impossible to find any statement by ophthalmology. ( So not one, just by a single person ! )The AAO is the only one found so far in which ophthalmology as an institute make a statement. And it is not present in the external link section. A former RFC made very clear outside editors find this link very important. An editor found it even humorous it had to be discussed. Seeyou (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, Do you really refer to page 22 of this link [6] ? It is an example in which the BM is used as an example. Seeyou (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the AAO review as an External Link, see this follow-up to the previous RfC. In short, the AAO review is contained on a single webpage, which is already referenced four times in the article, and therefore should not also be an External Link per WP:EL. The rationale for repeating it therein was based in a now-defunct clause from WP:Citing sources which had also justified the repetition of other links which have since been removed. So the RfC in question is itself outdated. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeyou, i'd to know, specifically, what about the Encyclopdia of Pseudoscience, violates WP:RS? the only thing you could possibly quibble over is that it is a tertiary source, but that doesn't make it inherently unreliable. while the entire article should not rely on tertiary sources, we are not forbidden from using them in much the same way we are not forbidden from using primary sources. i do not want to promote original research in this article by allowing contentious labels to be applied based on subjective whims, but we have two sources satisfying WP:RS that call the Bates Method pseudoscience. I do not know why it is hard to find an opthamologist calling the BM pseudoscience. I could offer theories, opinions, and postulations but they would only be as valid as your own, so it is non-constructive for us to ponder it. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I just looked up the wikipedia article Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and was amused to find the following:

Reviews: The Skeptical Inquirer's review of the book claims that, ".. errors, major and minor, can be found throughout.", "It reads more like a collection of opinions", "[needs to] contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts."

In general, books like that are very suspect as sources, since they have tendentiousness as their raison d'être. At very least, I'd like to know who wrote the encyclopedia article concerned, to assess whether they had any qualifications to do so. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What about creating a "fringe therapies" infobox? "Alternative therapies" probably wouldn't go far enough to reflect the fringe status of the Bates method. And "fringe" is probably better than "pseudoscientific" since the former does not itself take a stance on efficacy. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been considered pseudoscience for almost a century now. Isn't that good enough? --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that creating a new infobox is a good idea. I can't see any reason against "Alternative therapies" since that is precisely what BM is. "Fringe" would be less good but I suppose acceptable at a pinch. I see "pseudoscientific" as offensive and unjustified. That word is favored only by the anti-fringe bandwagon crowd, who by and large know no more about science than the fringe theorists they love to criticise. It is notable that more responsible sources, like the PubMed article mentioned above, avoid using the word. That avoidance is as eloquent as any use of the epithet. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So, in Sam's opinion, anybody favouring use of the word "pseudoscience" is a) Inherently anti-fringe, b) Jumping on a bandwagon, c) Ignorant of science, d) Critical for the "love" of it, e) Irresponsible... and s/he has the nerve to say that we are the ones being offensive. Famousdog (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, I suppose it was a bit of a sweeping statement. I've deleted it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ok, samuel, point made. I didn't exactly vette the source, just found it. of course i'm not sure if a reviewer's opinion, quoted on wikipedia, is really a nail in the coffin for this book. others may exist, and then others may not, i was just questioning seeyou's opinion that only an opthamologist's published opinion would qualify.

ronz, the point of the matter here is that we are making a claim, which has in turn been disputed... as per WP:PROVEIT, we are required to back up that claim with a source. while i agree that this topic is pseudoscientific in the basic senses of the term, i respect other editors' requests for proof of this classification beyond my own limited interpretations of the term. a good question to ask is are statements like "quackery" and "unproven efficacy" equivalent to pseudoscience? I may argue "yes" but i had thought merely finding a source would be easier than hashing out a discussion. - ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be so much simpler if we all would be against ORIGINAL RESEARCH. In my opinion we should ask the arbitration committee or Jimbo [7] to make a statement regarding Original research. This article contains sadly far to much. Seeyou (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Two references have been provided. --Ronz (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to present one, but you can't be serious about this one. What is the other one ? My advice : Try to impress the arbitration committee. Seeyou (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

POV fork at Wikiquote

I'd be grateful if people could have a look at Seeyou's Wikiquote page [8]. Frankly, I think it is an attempt at a POV fork to this page and as such should be deleted. However, the alternative would be to restore some balance by adding other quotes from less pro-Bates / pro-NVI sources. Famousdog (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best to discuss it on the talkpage of this article [9] A big advantage of wikiqoute for some editors is it is very hard to create bias or original research. Currently a very big problem in this article. But please discuss here or there. See also the qoustions I asked famousdog and if you can provide qoutes which acoording to you should be mentioned. Please do. Seeyou (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Very hard to create bias"? When your version has succeeded so spectacularly? Hardly. But I'll play your game... Famousdog (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bates method article at Wikiquote has now been deleted [10]. I imagine that the NVI article will go soon too. Probably for the best, eh? Famousdog (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bernarr Macfadden

Perhaps I've missed something, but why is Bernarr Macfadden listed as an original proponent of the Bates method? There's nothing about Bates on his page and if he was a supporter of Bates, he should really be under "subsequent proponents", shouldn't he? Famousdog (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See the third External link, and the Gardner reference for the final paragraph of the "Movement" subsection. Bates and MacFadden co-produced a correspondence course in eye-training prior to Bates publishing his own material. PSWG1920 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. The key word there is clearly "prior". Perhaps MacFadden's role in the development of the BM could be discussed a little earlier in the article? Famousdog (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)