Talk:Bates method - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jmc (talk | contribs) at 06:33, 21 October 2020 (→Refined argument against "ineffective"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:33, 21 October 2020 by Jmc (talk | contribs) (→Refined argument against "ineffective")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bates method article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Bates method has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 19, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
December 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 17, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 9, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
April 6, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bates method article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Sungazing and pupil miosis

I just found a short article from the College of Optometrists which addresses sungazing, and mentions that it could result in perceived temporary improvement by making the pupil smaller. Perhaps this could be cited in the Sunning and/or Possible reasons for claimed improvements sections? Belteshazzar (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Only a troll or fool could have read that article and got the take-away that the point worth mentioning is "that it could result in perceived temporary improvement". You need to be banned. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not the only point worth mentioning, but this article already mentions the risks involved in sunlight exposure. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

We should not cite that. I think both troll and fool apply. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The College of Optometrists would seem to be a reliable source. Or is a "news release" uncitable? Belteshazzar (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, Suggestion: Remove this article from your watchlist. Never look at it again. Guy (help!) 22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand the objection here. The source appears credible. It explicitly connects this to the Bates method. What more is needed? Belteshazzar (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a press release, so not MEDRS. And the link is not explicit. And you are cherry picking to push a POV. Again. Alexbrn (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would dispute your last two points, and WP:MEDRS doesn't appear to outright exclude press releases, but I suppose any further discussion would be a waste of time. Hopefully a better source will soon emerge. Belteshazzar (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is it so important that we precisely describe this one potential mechanism that might be contributing to the placebo effect here? That doesn't seem to be normal for articles about quack treatments.

I'll grant that, if true, it's an interesting fact, but it's hardly an important one to the readers' understanding of the topic. Why such a crusade to include a mention? If there's an objection, why not just shrug your shoulders and move on? ApLundell (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't I pretty much just do that? But in response to your comment, any such mechanism is in fact crucial to understanding the topic. There are people who think they have gotten improvement from such methods, or that someone they know has. Absent a mainstream explanation for these apparent results, such people might (somewhat understandably) continue to pour time and perhaps money into this, trying to improve further.

Such an explanation (though probably not one of the more commonly applicable ones) which is in the current article is sourced entirely to works from 1943 and 1957. Considering everything else that is excluded due to WP:MEDRS, this is quite odd. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, no it's not. There's no evidence that this contributed in any way to the spread of this bollocks - in fact, its spread appears to have been entirely unrelated to any objective merit. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There's evidence that pseudomyopia and "flashes of clear vision" contributed, at least. Not that it could ever really be proven what caused the spread of something like this. People ridiculing it without taking the time to elucidate why it might seem to work was probably a factor also. Belteshazzar (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, GRIFTERS GONNA GRIFT. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Suggest you remove the word ‘ineffective’ from the first sentence. It is effective I have personally witnessed it work on a seven year old child who was about to go into those so called ‘coke-bottle’ glasses. About a year later after practicing this method under the tutelage of her parents, she was not wearing any glasses and still does not to this day. She is 22 now.

Akhila Hughes Takhila (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No, unfortunately our sourcing rules, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS will not allow us to, sorry. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "ineffective" should be removed, but that is not likely to happen unless a new source turns up. The cited source, Quackwatch, is apparently held in high esteem by the Misplaced Pages community, so it can't be contradicted unless a better source does so. A mainstream optometry journal would probably work, but the question is how to get such a source to present a fair treatment of the Bates method. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, would you prefer "dangerous" or would "batshit insane" be best? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"dangerous" might actually be better than "ineffective", if such an adjective has to be included in the lead sentence. I object to "ineffective" partly because it will make some readers (such as Takhila in this thread) think that the article authors don't know what they're talking about. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, what a bizarre statement. There is no credible evidence the Bates method works, so "ineffective" is accurate. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I realize now that this letter is not citable here, but it still seems basically credible. I have no idea whether Takhila is describing a case of pseudomyopia or something else. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, there is no credible evidence that the Bates method works. You need to remove this article from your watchlist. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

How about “ineffective and dangerous”? Brunton (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a need for either in the first sentence. The rest of the intro pretty much explains it. Ironically, calling it "ineffective" may well increase the danger, because many people won't then take the article seriously. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Belteshazzar, I am curious. Do you ignore "one-way" signs? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I however, support using, "inneffective, dangerous and batshit insane" then holdouts might possibly get the message. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

When I made over-the-top edits like that, I got blocked for WP:POINT, but if you actually agree with such a change, it might be OK to make it. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m not convinced that “batshit insane” is supported by reliable sources. However, it is clearly ineffective and dangerous, based on the body of the article. And there’s nothing in Misplaced Pages’s policies that says we have to humour people who think ineffective therapies are effective. Brunton (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If the Bates method is completely ineffective, then Aldous Huxley was clearly wrong (as is the user who started this thread) to claim that it improved his eyesight. Yet my earlier edit saying that Huxley was wrong was deemed "bizarre". Belteshazzar (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

”...then Auldous Huxley was clearly wrong”:

”Then suddenly he faltered—and the disturbing truth became obvious. He wasn't reading his address at all. He had learned it by heart. To refresh his memory, he brought the paper closer and closer to his eyes. When it was only an inch or so away, he still couldn't read it, and had to fish for a magnifying glass in his pocket to make the typing visible to him. It was an agonizing moment.”

‘Nuff said. Brunton (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's one man's account, about an event that apparently happened ten years after Huxley wrote The Art of Seeing. If this account is accurate, it only means Huxley's vision wasn't good at the time this happened. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, you brought up Huxley. Can you find any RS that says it’s effective, or that staring at the sun is safe? Brunton (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I brought up Huxley because it is apparently considered "bizarre" for Misplaced Pages to state that he was wrong about the Bates method improving his eyesight, so it seems a bit inconsistent for Misplaced Pages to state that the Bates method is ineffective. In response to your question, I never argued that Misplaced Pages should say the Bates method is effective, just that it shouldn't say it's ineffective. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. Brunton (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I got blocked because of that. The inconsistency here is still interesting, though. Belteshazzar (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn’t. Brunton (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you see the difference between what I did, and what you did? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about anything you did. But I apologize for perpetuating this discussion, which has gotten pointless. I think my response to Takhila was good, but then I shouldn't have responded to Guy. I realize that nothing is going to change until a new source emerges. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible to place a note at the top of this page explaining why the lead sentence says the Bates method is ineffective, and what it would take to change that? I assume that if a mainstream optometry journal were to publish an article stating that the Bates method might be effective in some cases, that would do it. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the 'Dead-end' section of the article is sufficient explanation of why the lead sentence says the Bates method is ineffective. Mainstream optometry journals have had over a century to publish an article stating that the Bates method might be effective in some cases.

And this thread has also surely reached a dead end. -- Jmc (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, why on earth would we want to encourage people to continue the insane crusade to change the lead? What it would take is for the human physiology to be different. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead says the Bates method is ineffective because reliable sources say that it doesn’t work. Brunton (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

How about this in-text?  Belteshazzar (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:BAIT, WP:DTS. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Refined argument against "ineffective"

Vision is too complex for any such method to be summarily deemed "ineffective", unless such a statement is very specific about what is not possible physiologically. While Quackwatch is cited to support this pejorative, actual optometry sources take a somewhat more measured tone. Also note what this one says about perceptual learning. It mostly discounts a connection with the Bates method because "the Bates method emphasizes repeated relaxation of the eyes, rather than repeated practice on a demanding task". However, the author may have been unaware of some of Bates' recommendations, such as reading small print and imagining small letters. Yes, this is original thought, but I offer it only as an argument to remove "ineffective". Current sources limit what this article can say, but removing a pejorative is a different matter. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is original thought Thanks for that disclaimer. Please stop wasting our time. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The point is that vision is too complex for any such method to be summarily deemed "ineffective". Which I'm not sure that any recent source other than Quackwatch really does, anyway. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

'Ineffective' a pejorative?! Belteshazzar betrays his/her not-so-hidden agenda with this emotive characterisation of the term. I'm with Hipal/Ronz in a plea to stop wasting our time. -- Jmc (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

In this case, it is a pejorative, because the opening sentence could just as easily omit it. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please leave this article alone. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's not miss the fact that there is a known mechanism by which such a method could actually work. The author does not entirely discount a connection between perceptual learning and the Bates method, just says that it doesn't seem likely based on his understanding of the Bates method. This might be awkward to report on in the article, but we can at least remove "ineffective" from the lead sentence. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That paper is cited on the article already. It is not a pro-Bates method paper. The author says "The Bates method includes palming, visualization, movement (or ‘shifting’) and sunning. None of these techniques appear to have any plausible rationale for treating myopia". You want ineffective removed from the lead sentence, that is bizarre. We have many reliable references indicating Bates method is ineffective. You have not provided any to the contrary. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's cited regarding blur adaptation after glasses are removed. I didn't claim that paper was pro-Bates. Note, however, the tentative tone. "None of these techniques appear to have any plausible rationale for treating myopia" is a bit different from saying that it's definitely ineffective. Quackwatch may be the only recent source which does that; otherwise, why is an actual optometry source not cited for "ineffective"? Belteshazzar (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

We already have a quote in the lead which says "Most of his claims and almost all of his theories have been considered false by practically all visual scientists". Marg, Elwin (April 1952). "Flashes of clear vision and negative accommodation with reference to the Bates Method of visual training". American Journal of Optometry & Archives of American Academy of Optometry. 29 (4): 167–84. There are recent papers that could be cited for example this one which says "the efficacy of this method is questionable and his theory was contradicted by mainstream ophthalmology and optometry of his day and still is today" and this paper says the Bates method has been scientifically refuted . The Bates method has been discredited for over sixty years. There are many optometry sources on the article already and some not cited like the two above that indicate the method is ineffective. I agree we could add more references to the article but we don't need to cite them all in the lead because many are already in the text of the article. Why are you still claiming the Bates method is not ineffective? Show me one peer-reviewed optometry journal that says otherwise. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Interestingly, the Elwin Marg paper has been deemed unacceptable insofar as explaining another key reason why the Bates method might sometimes seem to work. What I really want is for this article to explain all such reasons. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be valid sources for most of them, even though they are clearly real phenomena. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you are confused about anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence. The Bates method does work for some people, just like naturopathy, urine therapy, crystal healing, ear candling, magnet therapy and other nonsense quackery sometimes works. The key thing point here is that anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. When you put all these quack things including Bates Method under scientific examination and introduce controls they don't work. That is what separates science from pseudoscience. The Bates Method is ineffective scientifically that has been demonstrated. Aldous Huxley and others thought the Bates Method improved their eyesight and maybe it did but there is no scientific evidence for this and all we have are anecdotes. Without scientific controls in place we do not know which other variables are at play. You seem to be ignoring the science and looking for anecdotes. For example you said in one of your edits if the Bates method is ineffective then why did it improve Aldous Huxley's eyesight. See what I wrote above. This has been explained to you. Per multiple Misplaced Pages policies we go by the mainstream scientific sources on this topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Even with scientific controls in place, we may not know all the variables, including factors that may be working against improvement. It still seems unnecessary to say "ineffective", especially in light of what is known about perceptual learning. If we're going to keep "ineffective", however, is there any objection to changing the source? Maybe to this one, which is at least an optometry journal. Although now that I look at the references there, it cites an earlier version of the Quackwatch article along with a 1956 book to source "despite considerable scientific refutation". Belteshazzar (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

And I don't think I ever said "why did it improve Aldous Huxley's eyesight". I said that if we state point-blank that the Bates method is ineffective, we are saying that Huxley was wrong about the Bates method improving his eyesight. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. Huxley's belief that it improved his eyesight cannot be used as evidence that it is not ineffective, just as Samuel Shenton's belief that the earth is flat cannot be used as evidence that it is not spherical. -- Jmc (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Heavy Bias Against Bates Method

At the onset of this article and all throughout, there is a suggestive narrative that the Bates Method does not work at all, where as there are countless accounts of it's success, even within the documents cited as "evidence" of the opposite.

Likewise, there are claims herein that the relaxation of the eyes is not important for improved and lasting sight, which it is; whereas no real scientific evidence is noted, while PLENTY of opinionated articles and books against the topic of someone being able to cure their own eyes is prolific.

This type of scolarly bias is unethical and is 100% not in alignment with the original purpose of Misplaced Pages.

When someone is curious about the Bates Method, they come here to read about the BATES method, NOT your opinion and what you think about it. And calling it "ineffective," at the onset is an OPINION that has nothing to do with the Bates Method.

Whereas his actual techniques would be useful to disclose here, instead of these blatant lies.

I am able to discern this bias for myself, because I have used the metbod AND it does work to improve eyesight - not everyone is so observant.

Whereas it is clear that whoever keeps editing this with bias has not applied oneself with consistency and/or has his or her own agenda.

I wonder what other corruption POV are created by such authors of deception? GnosticSavior (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, of the techniques mentioned herein, only the most "unbelievable" ones are listed, whereas there are many more practical techniques that are required in order for results to be gained.

His books have a full list of those techniques.

Perhaps of the editor would have read HIS books, and not just every book criticising his scientific work, this article might be more than trash.

I bet the karma for this editor is atrocious; because lying to people and actively working to discredit the work of someone with whom there are MANY others continuing his work in private practices to this very day.

Of course, his method does nothing to fill the pockets of everyone that profits from the crutch of glasses. GnosticSavior (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

seeing DOT org has many case stories of success with the Bates Method, and many people making a living teaching it. GnosticSavior (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I've left you some suggestions on how to make your experiences here rewarding. I hope you'll take them to heart. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears that something must change elsewhere before this article can be fixed. See my conversation with this optometrist, and some old comments by this user. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC).

Nothing needs fixing as far as anyone can tell. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Not if "anyone" includes GnosticSavior (talk · contribs), Takhila (talk · contribs), Peaceful07 (talk · contribs), ReTracer (talk · contribs), etc. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Consensus is not determined by appealing to Ad populum or Ad numerum fallacies, but sound arguments based upon our policies. Creating lists of people on "sides" violates behavioral policies here: the need to work together cooperatively and not make this a battleground. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar needs to be topic banned on anything related to the Bates Method. I find this user disruptive as he/she has not made any productive edits to this encyclopedia and has ignored all policies and advice that has been given to them. The topic ban has been requested by several users in the past, including one admin (see the top of this talk-page). There are over 6 million articles on this encyclopedia. This user in question rarely edits anything else. The agenda is POV pushing and removing criticisms of the Bates Method. This has been going on for quite a few months on and off. I think we need to bring it to an end. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I posted a helpful response to GnosticSavior, and then I only made that list because of what Hipal said. It was rather insulting to say "Nothing needs fixing as far as anyone can tell" in view of GnosticSavior's post and my response. I'm not sure I have removed any criticisms of the Bates method, except for things that were redundant. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Both were BATTLEGROUND comments. That's why you should be banned from this and all related articles. If you haven't figured out how to behave by now, we shouldn't have to put up with the disruption. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My response to GnosticSavior was only intended to be helpful. He clearly believes that the article needs to be fixed, and I agree in principle, but that would require new sources. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The foregoing is surely the comment of a classic POV pusher. "I want to change the article to my POV, but I can't find RSs that support my POV" - a dead giveaway that a POV is being pushed. Enough already, I say (again). -- Jmc (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

In this case, I was only trying to explain the circumstances to GnosticSavior. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As far as Psychologist Guy's claim that I have "not made any productive edits to this encyclopedia", I actually have made some clearly productive edits to this article and others. Here, I improved the intro and created the "Early history" section. I've also cut down on verbiage throughout the article. And I removed "slightly" and then "temporarily" in a context where both were inaccurate. And I recently fixed what appeared to be an actual pro-Bates pov at Aldous Huxley. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Most of this is answered by WP:FRINGE, but this statement interests me : "Whereas his actual techniques would be useful to disclose here"

Yes, they would. Not in absurd detail, but an overview should certainly be given.

It seems to me that Bates_method#Treatments already does this. But if it's missing something, that would be a useful discussion to have here. ApLundell (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a "Miscellaneous" subsection to the Treatments section. I know Bates recommended reading small print, which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the current article, and might relate to perceptual learning, a mechanism by which such a method might actually work to an extent. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Categories: