Talk:Bates method/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Edit warring

Editors involved in the dispute over this material: please discuss the issue and reach a consensus here, rather than edit warring in the article. I have protected the article for 24 hours. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussed in the past, mostly in the context of adding an external link to a video:Talk:Bates_method/Archive_14#Meir_Schneider_again --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion to which Ronz refers was complicated by arguments about the copyright status of the video. This latest citation provides the opportunity to discuss the issue more on its merits, and I agree that we should do so. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, The Epoch Times is founded, owned and operated by Falun Gong spiritualists and pursues an overt anti-China stance to the extent that it is essentially propoganda. Sam argued that it is irrelevant that the source does not meet WP:MEDRS, but considering Schneider's claims of vision improvement (and their implicit support for / promotion of the Bates Method) I would think that MEDRS is entirely relevant. Although, if perhaps Sam could explain his reasoning, I am ready to be convinced otherwise. Famousdog (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In terms of discussing the article "on its merits", it states that "If you go into your local opticians and ask them if there is any way that you can improve your vision, chances are they’ll laugh at you. Optometrists believe that in adults visual fitness can’t be improved." This is patently wrong, there are various ways in which vision can be improved, such as perceptual learning, however this is an extrememely intensive and BOOOOOOORING way to generate a small improvement. I work in an Optometry dept and our students are taught all about perceptual learning, so that's BUSTED. Who are the "Optometrists, ophthalmic surgeons, and opticians who have examined his eyes"? Who are the "top ophthalmologists (who) have come forward to praise Schneider’s methods"? The only quote from a trained optometrist flatly contradicts what Schneider is saying, but he is only given a sentence in which to do it! This is a shoddy, biased piece of journalism and not sufficient support for claims of a medical nature. Famousdog (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

FFS, you only have to look at the pro-spirituality quotes they have cherry-picked for their "Science in Quotes" section to realise that this is a paper with a distinctly anti-science agenda. Famousdog (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Some interesting points there, FD:

• I can't see that "Science in Quotes" has in any way an "anti-science agenda". It seems to be mainly reminders by scientists that they do not, nor ever can, know everything. I have the impression that it is the better scientists who are most willing to make that point. You'd have been on stronger ground in objecting to the author of the piece, Mastoor Khan, who has written other pieces from a clearly pro-Bates viewpoint.
• If it's merely information about Meir Schneider we want, it's best obtianed from his book or website. The trouble is, the only people who've taken any notice are sympathisers, and certainly his case is almost totally reliant on his own account of it.
• There's an interesting parallel to be drawn between his case and Huxley's. Both had a much more serious condition than mere refractive error, so are outside the main Bates assumption that "strain" is the problem. Both are therefore untypical, isolated cases. For both their own writings are the main source of publicly known information. Thus both count as "anecdotal", which should imply that both should be excluded from the article. I'd be interested to know on what grounds Huxley is in but Schneider should be out.
• "If you go into your local opticians ... chances are they’ll laugh at you". I went in to my local optician some time ago and explained that my daughter was unhappy at the prospect of having to wear glasses, and I was told quite rudely by the optician that she had the option of contact lenses. No other option was mentioned. So I find that remark not to be "patently wrong", but to be entirely consistent with my experience.
• The idea of perceptual learning is of course totally consistent with the Bates approach, and if pursued might eventually lead to a (probably partial) vindication of Bates. I'm amused at the way in which you flaunt your prejudice against such approaches by describing them as BOOOOOOORING. If you could get over that prejudice we might make some real progress with the article, and by the same token if more of your colleagues could do so, patients would benefit. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As someone who reverted the addition of the material from the Epoch Times (nad an admin), please allow me to weigh in. I do not see the Epoch Times as a reliable source in this case. As noted above, the article does not name any of the experts (or their hospitals) who have noted Mr. Schneider's recovery, and seems to be based almost entirely on the word of the man who says he was cured. As for Huxlet, he meets notability requirements in a way Schneider does not, and his use of the Bates method is covered in more reliable sources. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Huxley is notable and so is his book on vision. Both have wikipedia articles, and his eyesight is rightly discussed in his own article. His book can properly be discussed in this article, but discussion of his personal eyesight should be limited to at most a brief mention since other individual case histories have been banned as not statistically significant, and also since we have no sources giving independent evidence of expert examination of his vision (at any stage). The Hollywood banquet story is positively bizarre in its unreliability as a source, in that

• Bennet Cerf, who had no relevant expert qualifications, and whose prejudices we do not know, made an observation at some distance of Huxley's behavior. He wrote about it.
• Martin Gardner, who had no relevant expert qualifications, and who was openly strongly hostile to Bates Method and Huxley, quoted Cerf (we do not know how accurately).
• wikipedia accepts Garder's biased and inexpert account of Cerf's possibly biased and inexpert account as WP:RS.

Would it be too provocative to suggest that if the story had seemed more favorable to Bates Method, editors would have decided that this strenght of sourcing was inadequate? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring your not-so-subtle digs at me, Sam, let me firstly clarify one point for you. Perceptual learning will never, ever, ever vindicate Bates. The improvements are far too small, take far too much effort to acheive (that's what I meant by "BOOOOOOORING" - Bates exercices are fun by comparison! I wasn't "flaunting my prejudices", I was speaking as someone who has actually done perceptual learning experiments. Have you, dear Sam?) and, crucially, do not generalise. Let me explain. If you trained for, say 40 hours over the course of a week, at a task that required you to discriminate stimuli of different orientations around vertical at a point 6 degrees from the fovea, you may show a small improvement in your ability to discriminate stimuli of different orientations around vertical at a point 6 degrees from the fovea. And that's it. You would not improve your ability to, say, discriminate stimuli of different orientations around horizontal (or 45 degress) at a point 6 degrees from the fovea. Nor would you improve your ability to discriminate stimuli of different orientations around vertical at a point 4 degrees from the fovea (or 5, or 7, or indeed anywhere else). You're acuity would not improve. Your contrast sensitivity would not improve. Your squint wouldn't spontaneously align. In other words the sort of things Bates was claiming would happen for his own (rather daft) exercises. Perceptual learning is so context-specific as to be virtually useless. Point made, I hope.

Secondly, The "Science in Quotes" section is a collection of quotes from eminent scientists basically saying "we know nothing". Or talking about God. Einstein wasn't talking about the Judeo-Christian deity when he said "God doesn't play dice", he was using God as a metaphor for nature. But you have to think about what the readership of The Epoch Times will be thinking seeing those quotes. "Gee. Scientists are stoopid. Or religious. Or both." If you can't see media bias when it's that crashingly obvious, then I can't help you.

Thirdly, anecdata is not data. Not knowing the details of your daughter's case, I can't comment, but perhaps the optometrist was right and nothing else except correction could be done? Have you considered that? Famousdog (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I agree with you on the Bennet Cerf thing. It's an anecdote - even if it's published. Famousdog (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Truth about Eye Exercises

The Truth about Eye Exercises by Philip Pollack is not an adequate refutation of Bates' claims that the eyeball changes shape to maintain focus, as footnote four of the article implies. Pollack makes three main arguments against Bates:

1) Other eye doctors and books say Bates is wrong. These sources do NOT include peer-reviewed scientific articles, but instead consist of references to encyclopedias, textbooks, or sources that ultimately reference Helmholtz's experiments (which Bates was consciously contradicting). 2) Bates was a charlatan just trying to make money. Or other aspects of his method clearly don't work, so it must all be hogwash. Or some other form of insult. 3) A current (to the fifties) test with infrared rays has shown some preliminary evidence that the eyeball maintains its shape. There are some slight problems with the test, especially in relation to Bates' argument, but the accuracy will be increased and the Helmholtz theory will be indisputably demonstrated "soon."

That is to say, Pollack relies on reference to authority, personal insult, and speculation to refute Bates' hypothesis. He offers no peer-reviewed evidence in his text or in footnotes that goes beyond Helmholtz' tests on cadavers. This does not necessarily mean that evidence did not exist at that time, only that Pollack did not have it. But the Wikipedia article says "his main physiological proposition – that the eyeball changes shape to maintain focus – has consistently been contradicted by observation," and cites this book and only this book as evidence. To properly refute Bates, we need references to peer-reviewed scientific investigations that specifically contradict Bates' hypothesis.

71.237.74.155 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful comment. If you can provide citations for peer-reviewed scientific investigations that specifically address Bates' hypothesis, please give them here or include them in the article. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've looked. I've failed. That's not to say it isn't out there. There are several different journals to search and as many as a hundred years to look through. I also may have missed one or many possible search terms, and I have limited time. Since the Bates hypothesis stated that the non-myopic eye changes shape due to muscle tension/relaxation during a change in focus, gathering clear evidence either for or against this hypothesis should be relatively straightforward. There shouldn't be any issues with subjective opinions or proving a negative, as there seem to be with the Bates method. With modern tools, the movements of a healthy non-myopic eye during focus changes could likely be measured with a degree of accuracy to satisfy even the most ardent Bates supporters. (If it hasn't been done, some grad student should get on it.) Nikori (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I take that back. Reference 11 is excellent. I don't understand why that study (and its conclusions and clear elucidation of the current limitations circa 1998) isn't front and center in this article. Nikori (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

One reason the Drexler study is not front and center here is that it mentions nothing about Bates or vision improvement. Wikipedia policy prohibits using sources to support a conclusion not explicitly stated therein. Even the current use of this source dances around WP:SYN (not that I'm arguing to remove it.) PSWG1920 (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Drexler study is almost exactly the experiment that you would need to carry out disprove Bates' theory of accommodation, and it's a crying shame that WP policy means that it can't be "front and centre". It shows that there is a tiny change in axial length during accommodation, and the corresponding change in focus (between -0.036 and -0.015 diopters)is nowhere near big enough to allow focussing of the retinal image. Bates was wrong about the basic science and any of his theories and techniques that rest on this axial elongation myth fall over on that basis. It doesn't disprove everything about Bates, but it certainly shows that his ideas were not based on sound fact and that renders them extremely dubious. Famousdog (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Standards. Unfortunate. I had hoped to replace the statements from Pollack's book with references that were newer, more objective, and more scientific, but I see now why the article has taken the shape it has taken. Thank you for the clarification. Nikori (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this, and what is really needed is a valid source which makes the connection between studies such as Drexler's and the Bates method. In that case, it would not be original thought. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the anon contributor 71.237.74.155's reference to footnote four's refutation of Bates' claims that the eyeball changes shape to maintain focus. By "footnote four", I assume that s/he is referring to Reference 4, which is a link to Chapter 3 of Pollack's work - but I see nothing there that could be construed, even on the most antagonistic reading, as an argument that "Bates was a charlatan just trying to make money". Hence my puzzlement. -- Jmc (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right. My apologies. Pollack says nothing about money as a motivation for Bates either here or elsewhere in his book. Would "quack" be a better word (as in, Bates is like Benevenutus)? My reading is not intended to be antagonistic, nor is it intended to insult Pollack's book. Judging by chapters one and two of the book, Pollack seems to have written the book for a general audience in response to several high profile incidences relating to the Bates method in the forties and fifties -- including lawsuits relating to injuries sustained -- and clearly hoped to discourage further participation. As such, the book is fine. As an authoritative resource for a scientific article, the book is not adequate, just as "A Brief History of Time" is not an adequate source to demonstrate the existence of black holes, despite the book's authoritative author. Nikori (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)