This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Autorefraction is a type of refraction. In this context, the significant information is that the measurement was unchanged, not the method used to determine that measurement. While autorefraction is not based on the subjective responses of the patient, it is typically regarded as less accurate than other refraction methods. Garvin Talk 13:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Removed from external links. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
This article has been on my radar for some time as being very unbalanced. I've taken a stab at bringing it into balance by removing words like "but", "however", "attempt", "purport" and so on, as well as the excessive use of quotes around words like "strain." A good article simply states facts with trying to slant its argument one way or the other. Whether you are an eye doctor or a natural vision therapist, posit Bates arguments as well as the AOA's. Note the difference in tone between thee two lines:
I'm condensing things here. Hopefully you get the idea. Morganfitzp ( talk) 16:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Any particular reason for moving part of the introduction into "General criticisms"? Most of it is redundant by that point. PSWG1920 ( talk) 01:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at this sentence:
"Critics of the Bates method not only deny its efficacy, but go on to cite potential negative consequences for those who attempt to follow it, namely that they might overexpose their eyes to sunlight, put themselves and others at risk by not wearing their corrective lenses while driving, or neglect conventional eye care, possibly allowing serious conditions to develop."
The statement implies that all of Bates' critics discredit him equally, imbues criticism with an incredulous tone with the "not only" and "but go on to" rhetoric. then discredits Bates' patients by having them "attempt"—rather than follow—his methodology. This is the tone that I'm seeing a lot of in this article. I would rewrite the above sentence this way to make it more NPOV:
"Critics of the Bates method have denied its efficacy and cited potential negative consequences for those following it, namely that they might overexpose their eyes to sunlight, put themselves and others at risk by not wearing corrective lenses while driving, or neglect conventional eye care, possibly allowing serious conditions to develop."
Here the past participle de-universalizes the viewpoints of Bates' critics and weighted POV words are gone. One could, of course, add further counter-arguments to these counter-arguments (all sourced), but that would make for a lousy article indeed. Morganfitzp ( talk) 03:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree
In the "Results and criticism" section it states that , ". . . techniques are mainly from anecdotal evidence and their effectiveness in improving eyesight has not been substantiated by medical research," and is referenced by number [3]. But if you read the link to reference to [3], "Natural Vision Correction: Does It Work?", that statement does not appear in the article. The article is also just a short essay and not a study, and probably does not qualify as a bone fide reference. There is no reason to state in this page, or any Wikipedia page that something has not been substantiated by medical research, or that it is scientifically unproven. All these phrases mean is that science, or more correctly scientists, have not studied the issue in question. The only relevant thing to say would be to state that something is either scientifically proven or scientificly disproven, if such is the case. To say that something is scientifically unproven is to attempt to indirectly criticize it as scientifically disproven without the evidence back it up.
bruvensky ( talk) 05:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You have not responded directly to anything that I have said, so I cannot be sure what you mean. There is no conversation. I can assume that by referring me to a page about fringe science that you consider the Bates method fringe and unworthy. I read the page about fringe theories, and I do not consider the Bates Method to be fringe. It has not been studied by scientists enough to make any determination. I base this on my extensive experience with the Bates Method. The Bates Method is scientific, but begins with a view different from the prevalent one. I suggest that you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, and maybe even try the Bates Method. bruvensky ( talk) 04:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
You also are not responding directly to what I say, but just referring me to other wiki pages. The Bates Method is an alternative theoretical formulation, and meets that criteria as explained on the fringe science page. Bates was a scientist of his day and advocated a theory that had a history. The rest of the scientific community has continued on its way, but that has no bearing on Bates. The word fringe is often used in the perjorative. If something is called fringe, then it means that it is unscientific, and if it is labeled unscientific, then it is considered invalid and unworthy. The fringe page states that if a fringe theory should succeed in explaining some aspect of reality, then it will usually be rapidly accepted. But the writer used the word "usually" and history shows that is not usually the case. Scientific acceptance is a social phenomenon as much as it is a scientific one. bruvensky ( talk) 08:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This is the most biased, one-sided article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. There is a large body of people devoted to undermining Bates' work because prescribing and manufacturing eyeglasses is a very large, profitable industry that is threatened by his work. The people who wish to debunk him are strongly motivated by money, and will continue to publish "research" and edit this Wikipedia page to make sure only their view is presented. The people like myself who know that Bates was (essentially) right have no such motivation, no such organization, and we cannot compete with the profit-seeking minions who dominate the vision field.
I know that Bates was right because I was approaching legal blindness in my twenties, and Bates therapy saved me and restored my sight, as it has millions of others.
The "research" claiming he was wrong, in addition to being partially fraudulent and largely irreproducible, fails to take into account that Bates' own work was only the starting point -- the Gestalt therapists (like Fritz Perls) who continued his work showed that there's a very important psychological component to myopia (for example) as well. Due to this, people like myself cannot prove certain things in a lab run by people we distrust and despise -- because (in my case) the setting itself affects my eyesight.
I don't expect many people to believe all this, and I know changes I make to the Wikipedia page will be redacted by pseudo-scientists and the paid shills of the optometry industry. But even though I know I can't prevail here... this whole Wikipedia page is a shameful, one-sided piece of money-driven propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.20.125 ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 October 2012
FYI, I have posted a query about this article to WP:FTN. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 16:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this deletion: If we're going to talk about the sources, what about the preceding source, Alan M. MacRobert? He doesn't appear to be an authority in optometry. In casual discussions, the "dead-end" criticism is fairly common, but MacRobert's San Diego Reader article was the only real source I could find for that idea. I would opine that the quality of sources is not particularly important for this subtopic. PSWG1920 ( talk) 03:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Bias regarding this topic is evidenced by the editors' redacting my attempted correction of the misquote of Reference 45.
Read the reference and you will find that the authors found "Eye exercises have been purported to improve a wide range of conditions including vergence problems, ocular motility disorders, accommodative dysfunction, amblyopia, learning disabilities, dyslexia, asthenopia, myopia, motion sickness, sports performance, stereopsis, visual field defects, visual acuity, and general well-being. Small controlled trials and a large number of cases support the treatment of convergence insufficiency. Less robust, but believable, evidence indicates visual training may be useful in developing fine stereoscopic skills and improving visual field remnants after brain damage. As yet there is no clear scientific evidence published in the mainstream literature supporting the use of eye exercises in the remainder of the areas reviewed, and their use therefore remains controversial."
The editors' approved summary is "They found that 'As yet there is no clear scientific evidence published in the mainstream literature supporting the use of eye exercises to improve visual acuity,' and concluded that 'their use therefore remains controversial.'" In fact the authors found credible studies reporting improvement in 16 types of vision disorder. Accomodative dysfunction and myopia are two conditions specifically addressed by the Bates method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.84.216 ( talk) 14:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The editors will not permit me to gracefully concede that they are right and terminate this discussion, so I shall assume they wish to discuss this topic further and shall consider Alexbrn's question to be a sincere request for information. I do not have access to the full text of J Pediatric Ophthamology & Strabismus before 2006 but I can provide references to some studies found elsewhere favorable to the correction of accommodation disorders by means of exercises.
Berens et al studied visual training using a tachistoscope in 80 patients with low myopia. The investigators reported that 74 of 80 (92.5%) patients improved in terms of subjective visual acuity as measured on standard charts Patients in the treatment group improved on average from 20/98 to 20/63 (uncorrected) and 20/21 to 20/19 (corrected). A tachistoscope is an instrument that displays an image for a brief period and using such an instrument for visual training would correspond to the “flashing” technique of the Bates method.
Berens C, Girard L J, Fonda G, Sells S B. Effects of tachistoscopic training on visual functions in myopic patients. Am J Ophthalmol 1957;44:25-47.
The most frequently cited authority for the conclusion that exercises are of no value is "The Baltimore Myopia Study,"
Woods A.C. Report from the Wilmer Institute on the results obtained in the treatment of myopia by visual training. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1946; 29:28-57.
A re-evaluation of the data conducted in 1991 concluded that different data were used to reach conflicting conclusions and that there was a significant increase in visual acuity and the conclusion that visual training for the treatment of myopia is ineffective is invalid.
Trachtman, J N, Giambalvo, V, The Baltimore Myopia Study, 40 Years Later, J of Behavioral Optometry, v 2, No. 2, 1991, p. 47, http://www.oepf.org/sites/default/files/journals/jbo-volume-2-issue-2/2-2%20trachtman.pdf
Rouse, M. W. (1987) Management of binocular anomalies: efficacy of vision therapy in the treatment of accommodative deficiencies. Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt. 64, 415–420. "Vision therapy procedures have been shown to improve accommodative function effectively and eliminate or reduce associated symptoms. In addition, the actual physiological accommodative response variables modified by the therapy have been identified, eliminating the possibility of Hawthorne or placebo effects accounting for treatment success. Finally, the improved accommodative function appears to be fairly durable after treatment." http://sheridaneyecare.com/files/AccommadativeDeficiencies.pdf
Sterner, B., Abrahamsson, M. and Sjöström, A. (2001) The effects of accommodative facility training on a group of children with impaired relative accommodation – a comparison between dioptric treatment and sham treatment. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 21, 470–476. "The result of this study indicates that accommodative facility training has a real effect on the amplitude of relative accommodation in patients with impaired relative accommodation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.150.238 ( talk) 17:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Autorefraction is a type of refraction. In this context, the significant information is that the measurement was unchanged, not the method used to determine that measurement. While autorefraction is not based on the subjective responses of the patient, it is typically regarded as less accurate than other refraction methods. Garvin Talk 13:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Removed from external links. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
This article has been on my radar for some time as being very unbalanced. I've taken a stab at bringing it into balance by removing words like "but", "however", "attempt", "purport" and so on, as well as the excessive use of quotes around words like "strain." A good article simply states facts with trying to slant its argument one way or the other. Whether you are an eye doctor or a natural vision therapist, posit Bates arguments as well as the AOA's. Note the difference in tone between thee two lines:
I'm condensing things here. Hopefully you get the idea. Morganfitzp ( talk) 16:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Any particular reason for moving part of the introduction into "General criticisms"? Most of it is redundant by that point. PSWG1920 ( talk) 01:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at this sentence:
"Critics of the Bates method not only deny its efficacy, but go on to cite potential negative consequences for those who attempt to follow it, namely that they might overexpose their eyes to sunlight, put themselves and others at risk by not wearing their corrective lenses while driving, or neglect conventional eye care, possibly allowing serious conditions to develop."
The statement implies that all of Bates' critics discredit him equally, imbues criticism with an incredulous tone with the "not only" and "but go on to" rhetoric. then discredits Bates' patients by having them "attempt"—rather than follow—his methodology. This is the tone that I'm seeing a lot of in this article. I would rewrite the above sentence this way to make it more NPOV:
"Critics of the Bates method have denied its efficacy and cited potential negative consequences for those following it, namely that they might overexpose their eyes to sunlight, put themselves and others at risk by not wearing corrective lenses while driving, or neglect conventional eye care, possibly allowing serious conditions to develop."
Here the past participle de-universalizes the viewpoints of Bates' critics and weighted POV words are gone. One could, of course, add further counter-arguments to these counter-arguments (all sourced), but that would make for a lousy article indeed. Morganfitzp ( talk) 03:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree
In the "Results and criticism" section it states that , ". . . techniques are mainly from anecdotal evidence and their effectiveness in improving eyesight has not been substantiated by medical research," and is referenced by number [3]. But if you read the link to reference to [3], "Natural Vision Correction: Does It Work?", that statement does not appear in the article. The article is also just a short essay and not a study, and probably does not qualify as a bone fide reference. There is no reason to state in this page, or any Wikipedia page that something has not been substantiated by medical research, or that it is scientifically unproven. All these phrases mean is that science, or more correctly scientists, have not studied the issue in question. The only relevant thing to say would be to state that something is either scientifically proven or scientificly disproven, if such is the case. To say that something is scientifically unproven is to attempt to indirectly criticize it as scientifically disproven without the evidence back it up.
bruvensky ( talk) 05:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You have not responded directly to anything that I have said, so I cannot be sure what you mean. There is no conversation. I can assume that by referring me to a page about fringe science that you consider the Bates method fringe and unworthy. I read the page about fringe theories, and I do not consider the Bates Method to be fringe. It has not been studied by scientists enough to make any determination. I base this on my extensive experience with the Bates Method. The Bates Method is scientific, but begins with a view different from the prevalent one. I suggest that you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, and maybe even try the Bates Method. bruvensky ( talk) 04:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
You also are not responding directly to what I say, but just referring me to other wiki pages. The Bates Method is an alternative theoretical formulation, and meets that criteria as explained on the fringe science page. Bates was a scientist of his day and advocated a theory that had a history. The rest of the scientific community has continued on its way, but that has no bearing on Bates. The word fringe is often used in the perjorative. If something is called fringe, then it means that it is unscientific, and if it is labeled unscientific, then it is considered invalid and unworthy. The fringe page states that if a fringe theory should succeed in explaining some aspect of reality, then it will usually be rapidly accepted. But the writer used the word "usually" and history shows that is not usually the case. Scientific acceptance is a social phenomenon as much as it is a scientific one. bruvensky ( talk) 08:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This is the most biased, one-sided article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. There is a large body of people devoted to undermining Bates' work because prescribing and manufacturing eyeglasses is a very large, profitable industry that is threatened by his work. The people who wish to debunk him are strongly motivated by money, and will continue to publish "research" and edit this Wikipedia page to make sure only their view is presented. The people like myself who know that Bates was (essentially) right have no such motivation, no such organization, and we cannot compete with the profit-seeking minions who dominate the vision field.
I know that Bates was right because I was approaching legal blindness in my twenties, and Bates therapy saved me and restored my sight, as it has millions of others.
The "research" claiming he was wrong, in addition to being partially fraudulent and largely irreproducible, fails to take into account that Bates' own work was only the starting point -- the Gestalt therapists (like Fritz Perls) who continued his work showed that there's a very important psychological component to myopia (for example) as well. Due to this, people like myself cannot prove certain things in a lab run by people we distrust and despise -- because (in my case) the setting itself affects my eyesight.
I don't expect many people to believe all this, and I know changes I make to the Wikipedia page will be redacted by pseudo-scientists and the paid shills of the optometry industry. But even though I know I can't prevail here... this whole Wikipedia page is a shameful, one-sided piece of money-driven propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.20.125 ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 October 2012
FYI, I have posted a query about this article to WP:FTN. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 16:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this deletion: If we're going to talk about the sources, what about the preceding source, Alan M. MacRobert? He doesn't appear to be an authority in optometry. In casual discussions, the "dead-end" criticism is fairly common, but MacRobert's San Diego Reader article was the only real source I could find for that idea. I would opine that the quality of sources is not particularly important for this subtopic. PSWG1920 ( talk) 03:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Bias regarding this topic is evidenced by the editors' redacting my attempted correction of the misquote of Reference 45.
Read the reference and you will find that the authors found "Eye exercises have been purported to improve a wide range of conditions including vergence problems, ocular motility disorders, accommodative dysfunction, amblyopia, learning disabilities, dyslexia, asthenopia, myopia, motion sickness, sports performance, stereopsis, visual field defects, visual acuity, and general well-being. Small controlled trials and a large number of cases support the treatment of convergence insufficiency. Less robust, but believable, evidence indicates visual training may be useful in developing fine stereoscopic skills and improving visual field remnants after brain damage. As yet there is no clear scientific evidence published in the mainstream literature supporting the use of eye exercises in the remainder of the areas reviewed, and their use therefore remains controversial."
The editors' approved summary is "They found that 'As yet there is no clear scientific evidence published in the mainstream literature supporting the use of eye exercises to improve visual acuity,' and concluded that 'their use therefore remains controversial.'" In fact the authors found credible studies reporting improvement in 16 types of vision disorder. Accomodative dysfunction and myopia are two conditions specifically addressed by the Bates method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.84.216 ( talk) 14:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The editors will not permit me to gracefully concede that they are right and terminate this discussion, so I shall assume they wish to discuss this topic further and shall consider Alexbrn's question to be a sincere request for information. I do not have access to the full text of J Pediatric Ophthamology & Strabismus before 2006 but I can provide references to some studies found elsewhere favorable to the correction of accommodation disorders by means of exercises.
Berens et al studied visual training using a tachistoscope in 80 patients with low myopia. The investigators reported that 74 of 80 (92.5%) patients improved in terms of subjective visual acuity as measured on standard charts Patients in the treatment group improved on average from 20/98 to 20/63 (uncorrected) and 20/21 to 20/19 (corrected). A tachistoscope is an instrument that displays an image for a brief period and using such an instrument for visual training would correspond to the “flashing” technique of the Bates method.
Berens C, Girard L J, Fonda G, Sells S B. Effects of tachistoscopic training on visual functions in myopic patients. Am J Ophthalmol 1957;44:25-47.
The most frequently cited authority for the conclusion that exercises are of no value is "The Baltimore Myopia Study,"
Woods A.C. Report from the Wilmer Institute on the results obtained in the treatment of myopia by visual training. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1946; 29:28-57.
A re-evaluation of the data conducted in 1991 concluded that different data were used to reach conflicting conclusions and that there was a significant increase in visual acuity and the conclusion that visual training for the treatment of myopia is ineffective is invalid.
Trachtman, J N, Giambalvo, V, The Baltimore Myopia Study, 40 Years Later, J of Behavioral Optometry, v 2, No. 2, 1991, p. 47, http://www.oepf.org/sites/default/files/journals/jbo-volume-2-issue-2/2-2%20trachtman.pdf
Rouse, M. W. (1987) Management of binocular anomalies: efficacy of vision therapy in the treatment of accommodative deficiencies. Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt. 64, 415–420. "Vision therapy procedures have been shown to improve accommodative function effectively and eliminate or reduce associated symptoms. In addition, the actual physiological accommodative response variables modified by the therapy have been identified, eliminating the possibility of Hawthorne or placebo effects accounting for treatment success. Finally, the improved accommodative function appears to be fairly durable after treatment." http://sheridaneyecare.com/files/AccommadativeDeficiencies.pdf
Sterner, B., Abrahamsson, M. and Sjöström, A. (2001) The effects of accommodative facility training on a group of children with impaired relative accommodation – a comparison between dioptric treatment and sham treatment. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 21, 470–476. "The result of this study indicates that accommodative facility training has a real effect on the amplitude of relative accommodation in patients with impaired relative accommodation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.150.238 ( talk) 17:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)