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. |
It's been awhile since I read this article so I am essentially coming here with a fresh perspective. I have to say that I found it difficult to get much further than the Accommodation section, mostly because it was relying on only one source published well over 50 years ago yet our sourced text is phrased as though it was current and factual. This may be possible of course - that there are no updated opinions or research or histories of Bates' view of accommodation - in which case, I guess the 50 year old source will have to do. Are there not other more current sources on the subject which we can cite? -- Levine2112 discuss 05:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Accomdation according to W.H. Bates
I have added a picture about bates point of view on accomodation in the article.
an improvement in subjective visual acuity for patients with myopia who have undertaken visual training has been shown but no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated. [1]
In other words ophthalmology might say here they have found no evidence the shape of the eyeball can change. When you take a look in most general medical encyclopedias you will find an explanation directing to the lens being the cause of myopia or farsightness. Not the shape of the eyeball. Levine2112. Does the current paragraph make this difference in point of view clear ? Does the picture help to make this more clear ?
Seeyou (
talk) 10:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
See also :
Seeyou, the figure on the left shows that the lens basically has to have the appropriate focal length relative to the length of the eyeball otherwise myopia or hypermetropia ensues. This figure is slightly misleading as it emphasises the axial length and discounts the lens strength. You could easily re-draw that figure with standardised eyeball sizes and differing lens strengths and come to the opposite conclusion! It is a schematic diagram, not empirical data. The size of eyeballs does indeed vary from person to person, as does the strength of their lenses. Bates' mistake was to claim that the eyeball varies in length in a single person, from moment to moment and assists in accommodation. This simply doesn't happen. The figure on the left shows that myopia can be easily corrected with concave lenses, rendering the need for complex, lengthy and dubious exercises such as the Bates Method redundant. Famousdog ( talk) 18:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a reference to the 2007 WebMD article to the Accommodation section. I suppose the section could be rewritten to be based mostly on that source. Its "Anatomical Fallacy" section is short, but very much to the point. PSWG1920 ( talk) 05:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
In the spirit of Good Faith, I have decided to take a crack at doing what Ronz has repeatedly suggested (as best I can understand him) regarding the article's major secondary sources.
Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. 1957.
Gardner's chapter is the most generally well-known treatment of the Bates method, and largely serves as an outline for this article. Its content in order:
Elwin Marg, Flashes of clear vision and negative accommodation with reference to the Bates Method of visual training. 1952.
"Flashes of clear vision" are a recurring theme of this paper. Bates' theory of how the eye focuses is discussed, albeit in a less than straightforward manner (this source being a bit difficult to follow is a reason it is not currently used more in the article.) Bates is then quoted at length. His main techniques are listed. Subsequent proponents are mentioned, and it is noted than some did not adhere to Bates' physiological explanation of eye-focusing. Margaret Corbett is discussed and quoted at some length, as is Aldous Huxley. Critical quotes from ophthalmologists Duke-Elder and Lancaster are then presented. Several quotes are then given from a Bates method proponent named Beach regarding "flashes" of clear vision. Experiments are then described which concluded these "flashes" are not the result of any actual change in refractive error.
Overall, Marg takes a tone sympathetic to Bates and his followers, but clearly believes that they have misinterpreted their results.
Philip Pollack, The Truth about Eye Exercises. 1956
The book itself is out-of-print and rare, but Chapter 3 is provided on Quackwatch. SamuelTheGhost has indicated that he has the book and has used other parts of it for information about Margaret Corbett. As far as the freely available chapter, Pollack takes a far more condescending tone than Gardner or Marg. He begins by comparing Bates' work to a medieval handbook. As with Gardner and Marg, Bates' theory of accommodation is addressed near the beginning. Bates' laboratory techniques and reasoning are dismissed. His claims regarding palming, memory, and especially sunning are ridiculed. The risk that a follower of Bates with a sight-threatening condition will neglect conventional care is highlighted. Martin Gardner's summation is quoted (as it is in the introduction here, rightfully so in my opinion.) The chapter ends with a few quotes from medical professionals and the same biographical incident that Martin Gardner refers to.
Time Exercise v. Eyeglasses. 1943
This seems to state that the Bates method works in some cases, but explains the argument against it. A few proponents of the time are mentioned.
Ian Grierson, The Eye Book: Eyes and Eye Problems Explained. 2000
This is probably the best current source we have here which addresses the subject generally. Unfortunately, the relevant discussion only encompasses two pages. Grierson seems fairly neutral regarding the Bates method, surprisingly. His main criticisms are warnings of potential risks, but he seems to think that the efficacy is uncertain.
Frank J. Leavitt, "How to Save the World: Alternatives to Biomedical Research", Ethics in Biomedical Research: International Perspectives. 2007 (multiple authors of the book, but Leavitt wrote the chapter in question.)
This one is positive toward the Bates method, which is held up as a "perfect example of exercising individual health autonomy". Leavitt emphasizes Bates' use of memory, imagination, and relaxation. He claims the Bates method has helped him "tremendously". He acknowledges that some who try it do not get the expected results, but reasons that this is due to the subtleties involved. He argues that the Bates method would be difficult to test due to the role of relaxation and visualization.
WebMD, Natural Vision Correction: Does It Work? 2007
This is essentially a journalistic piece, and presents both sides of the issue. Natural vision teacher Martin Sussman is interviewed.
Visual Training for Refractive Errors, American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2004.
As discussed before, while the source is of high-quality, it is a real stretch to say that this is about the Bates method (which the source does not claim, only referring to Bates in a footnote, as background.) Nonetheless a couple of points are relevant here, namely those referenced in "Claimed success". The earlier summary of this report contained here has been condensed, because it was apparent that its outright removal would not be accepted. PSWG1920 ( talk) 03:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course, a potential knock on the four above sources is their age. However, I think the principle behind WP:PARITY applies here when you consider the limits of the current sources.
Let's now examine how the article uses the sources. Gardner, Marg, and Pollack all expound on Bates' underlying theories. Gardner, Marg, Pollack, Time, Grierson, and Leavitt each discuss, in varying detail and context, techniques which compose the Bates method. The criticisms applicable to individual techniques are reported here. Margaret Corbett is discussed at some length by Marg and apparently also by Pollack. Aldous Huxley's case is perhaps the single most notable aspect of the subject, and has many sources which report on it. Gardner and Marg both explore why the Bates method sometimes seems to get successful results. The AAO review also notes phenomena which may account for perceived improvements. I do not see a single aspect of the subject discussed here which is unimportant per the secondary sources. It's time to at least remove the tags from the top. PSWG1920 ( talk) 03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading the guideline Wikipedia:Controversial articles [ [3] I read something very important regarding controversial articles like the BM.
The mentioned paragraph :
An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.
Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy.
See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
In my opinion the current paragraph about accomodation can very easily be made very clear by presenting fig 4 of Bates book entitled Perfect eyesight without glasses or the book mentioned in the introduction. By presenting a picture like the one below representing the explanation of ophthalmology we make the contorversy very clear. W.H. Bates said the extraocular muscles of the eye are the muscles of accomodation while the accepted theory says the ciliairy muscle which changes the shape of lens is the muscle of accomodation. According to ophthalmology the only solution is to compensate the imbalance of the ciliary muscle / lens by lenses ( glasses or contacts ) or LASIK. Reference any medical encyclopedia or
an improvement in subjective visual acuity for patients with myopia who have undertaken visual training has been shown but no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated. [1]
In other words according to ophthalmology it impossible the shape of the eyeball changes and results in an improvement of visual acuity.
Figure 4 of W.H. Bates own Perfect eyesight without glasses page 11?. [ [4]]
Figure explaining mainstream medicine view on myopia [ [5]]
See also paragraph : [ [6]]
Comment: I'm here in response to the RfC. I have a strong background in neuroscience, and almost no background in opthalmology, so I'm coming here with no prior familiarity with the subject of this article. If I understand correctly, the first figure ("Fig. 4") is from Bates' own publication (please correct me if I misunderstand). It seems to me, then, that it can be quite appropriate to include it in an article such as this, for just the reasons given in the controversial articles page quoted above, even if its creator did make it misleading. As someone looking at it with naive eyes (pun intended), I can easily get from it the idea of eye shape change, and it does make it easier for me to grasp that idea, in a way that text alone does not. On the other hand, comparing it with the second figure, the one showing the mainstream understanding, does get rather complicated for me, and I agree with the editor who said that it makes the page needlessly confusing. So let me please suggest including the first figure, to illustrate the theory that the page discusses (whether true or not), but not including the other figure for comparison. I think, here, it is better to show the Bates theory and state in the text that it is not accepted and maybe misleading, as opposed to attempting to explain in a very technical way how the mainstream model differs. I assume there are also pages you can link to where the mainstream ideas are discussed in more detail. Just an outside opinion, hope it helps. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Include fig 4 The article is about the Bates method not current practice and understanding. The image greatly helps to explain what Bates was talking about. The text should, however, make clear that the images are Bates' views and do not necessarily represent current thinking in the subject. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 12:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Q1) Essentially, there is no controversy in the scientific sense. The only controversy is that unqualified people believe this stuff and promote it in arenas other than the proper ones, making it a controversy about science, but not a scientific controversy. Thus proper description of the controversy would entail describing it as a bunch of rank amateurs who are unable to come to grips with the evidence.
Q2)No opinion. I don't think that the image in question is all that useful in any case. If the image fig. 4 is included, it needs to be captioned in the way I mentioned.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose including this particular image. I can tell from above comments that if it becomes part of the article, figuring out how to contextualize it is going to be a huge problem. If any images are included in the section in question, they should be from a secondary source which explains Bates' view of accommodation and the orthodox view (and of course, they must have a free license.) That would be the best way to avoid breaching WP:UNDUE or WP:SYN. But really, I think the section does fine explaining the concept on an elementary level without the use of images. If readers want to know more, the section links to articles regarding the anatomy in question. PSWG1920 ( talk) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
PSWG1920 It is so easy ti explain. The picture below shows three conditions of the eye caused by the lens ( ophthalmology )or the eyeball ( W.H. Bates ). Controversy described. And you can not do anything about it ( ophthalmology ) you can do somethting ? ( W.H. Bates ). Seeyou ( talk) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Tryptofish, let me revisit your initial comment.
On the other hand, comparing it with the second figure, the one showing the mainstream understanding, does get rather complicated for me, and I agree with the editor who said that it makes the page needlessly confusing. So let me please suggest including the first figure, to illustrate the theory that the page discusses (whether true or not), but not including the other figure for comparison.
I would agree with you that presenting both images for the purpose of comparing them would make things too complicated. But showing only the illustration of Bates' model would be seen by some as giving it Undue weight, and probably rightly so. The best answer then is to leave out both images. PSWG1920 ( talk) 02:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I also came here from the RFC and appreciate that the controversy may be a little more complicated that it would appear at first sight. Perhaps someone could explain and clarify a few things for me. Do the drawings in question come from a publication by Bates? What exactly is the objection to including them? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Taking another look at the illustration in question (Fig. 4), I've realized that all it indicates, on an uncomplicated level, is that the hypermetropic eye is too short and the myopic eye is too long. By my understanding, that is in agreement with the mainstream medical view. Where Bates deviated from that was in his belief that the eyeball's shape was controlled by muscles, rather than being structural in form, and that the normal eye was continuously changing shape to focus at different distances. The illustration in question does nothing useful to show that, though the article's text explains it well enough. So there's another reason not to include the image. PSWG1920 ( talk) 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Q to PSWG1920, Can you make clear if you are still refusing to include fig 4 or are you going to accept fig. 4 for including ? Seeyou ( talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)Since this talk looks like it's going to be reviewed externally, I would like to make the following comment here as an editor who came here in response to the RfC, and was not previously involved. This situation looks to me like a sad case, where, on one side, are editors who want to push a pseudoscience POV and who resort inappropriately to grievance-type procedures, and, on the other side, are editors who over-react and dig in their heels, opposing even reasonable suggestions from outside editors to allow the presentation of material that would help readers better understand that pseudoscience, which is a big part of the subject matter of this page. It seems to me that each side does little to explain their positions in a way that could work towards consensus. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading this paragraph I saw someone added the text
These simple diagrams from PSWG by Bates, incorrectly show flattened and elongated eyes being responsible for hypermetropia and myopia. Bates beleived extraocular muscles acted on the eyes to produce these results.
This text is incorrect ! Bates picture is correct ! The shape of the eyevball of a myopic really is elongated. And the eyeball of a farsighted eye is shorter. PSWG1920 also mentions Bates picture is correct. PSWG1920 says :
Taking another look at the illustration in question (Fig. 4), I've realized that all it indicates, on an uncomplicated level, is that the hypermetropic eye is too short and the myopic eye is too longBy my understanding, that is in agreement with the mainstream medical view.
Seeyou ( talk) 21:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This picture shows what the bates method regarding the most common eyeconditions is all about ! Why is not this picture in the article ? Can some of the dominant editors please explain. Seeyou ( talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The picture below I created myself with pictures available in this wikipedia encyclopedia
The controversy of the Bates method is according to the current editors of this article : Opthalmology ( science ) versus Bates ( controversial ) = lens of the eye ( influenced by the ciliary muscle ) versus shape of the eyeball ( influenced by the extraocular muscles).
I removed the part of Lancaster's quote which stated that Huxley admitted that his "visual acuity has not improved in any extraordinary way." While Lancaster did say that, his wording was highly misleading, as it is clear that Huxley did claim great improvement relative to where he started from. What he admitted was that his vision was still very far from normal. PSWG1920 ( talk) 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have read this article and discussions on and off over a number of months and this is the first time I've decided to actually post something. My background includes many years of study in the Bates Method, with an interest in its history and study of the threads of its teaching tradition; on the way collecting stories and case studies.
Firstly I would like to express appreciation for the extraordinary amount of work that has gone into creating this article and to confirm, that presenting a fair, neutral and accurate presentation of the Bates Method is an exquisitely difficult task. To that end I'm going to put forward a few ideas that may help to clarify why it is such a problematic subject. While many people can understand the controversial aspects of Bates' theories, for example that of accommodation, the underlying schism in understanding lies deeper than that. I do not claim to be neutral on the subject, far from it, but I hope I can help by providing some insights into the nature of the problem from a different point of view.
I can appreciate the clear attempts in trying to attain independent assessments of the method. I wish to point out that the problems in obtaining truly independent source material lies not in raising doubts about the integrity nor intelligence of the sources quoted, but rather in the comprehension of the nature of the method and what it represents.
I can perhaps explain this better by way of examples:
1. If a person with no prior knowledge on the subject, reads a book about orange trees, learning about its characteristics, shape and colour of the fruit and a description of how to eat it, they will have a fair shot at identifying an orange tree with fruit if they happen to see one.
Now, by chance the person stumbles upon a lemon tree - everything seems to be in order, perhaps the colour of the fruit is more yellow than what they'd assumed, however, they've heard it's very good eating and so tuck in to a very sour and disappointing meal.
--
Perhaps not the best of illustrations, as the mistake in color requires a little stretch in belief, however, it is meant to illustrate that a person can be mistaken in their understanding, when purely reliant on the written word. At the very least, hopefully it will help to lead on to the next example:
2. A person reads a book about the Bates method, applying all their insights and previously learned knowledge to the new ideas and concepts being introduced. They then go forth, perhaps trying out some of the ideas, discovering either a small degree of success, or even better; or, as in many cases, none at all. The crux of the matter is you don't know if the person has stepped away from their reading, holding a lemon tree or an orange tree in their heads.
--
While this illustration may at first appear innocuous, it is in fact at the core of the controversy that surrounds the method. The method involves becoming aware of the nature of your own thought - and as such it potentially alters the fundamental structure of your understanding. As radical as that might sound it's actually rarely as dramatic as all that, but the deeper implication is that in general the level of misunderstanding about the method; what it is, how it works, and what it achieves, is almost universal.
In basic terms, if I were to look into the background of the independent sources used in the article, and to ask 'which of these learned people have undertaken a comprehensive set of lessons or training in the method?' What would the answer be? My guess is pretty much, nil.
So we are left with an odd situation: The ease of misunderstanding of the method - and I can't over-emphasize how common this is - coupled with the requirement for independent sources, means that: The more independent the source, the more likely it becomes that accuracy is lost. It is equivalent to accepting the assessment of oranges by people who have only partaken of lemons.
What to do about this I'm not sure. The independent sources, as necessary as they are, in a sense become less useful through lack of accuracy, yet from a conventional understanding of eyesight, they are nothing but accurate. In fact I'd have to point out, that the very independence from the method - in this case - creates a bias by default: "I understand the method as this, and (therefore) this is what I refute." Unfortunately that turns the issue of independent sources into an entirely one sided argument - and in the cold light of day, that is not neutral. -- ReTracer ( talk) 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
Seeyou ( talk) 21:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Samuel, a "maker of wheelchairs" might mock attempts at dieting that have plenty of support (like a calorie controlled diet plus exercise), but that would be stupid and shortsighted. He could also mock ridiculous fad diets that either don't work or "work" for reasons other than that suggested by the authors (c.f. Atkins) and be on fairly solid ground. Also, thanks for the subtle implication that I am mocking the BM. I have no need to mock it, I have only to point out its failings of logic, fact and its inability to generate and testable scientific hypotheses (except for the ones it has already failed on, such as Bates' theory of accommodation). Famousdog ( talk) 01:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok... this needs to end. PSWG has infinitely more patience than i ever could. He and the other regular editors here have spent far too much time and effort trying to placate ONE other editor's views which cryptically "should already be clear" and merely requotes wiki-policy without actually tying specific policies to specific prose. The consensus on this article is clear, and that it is FINE. details on different things can always be cleared up, but as far as concerns regarding WP:FRINGE, NPOV, and UNDUE - this article is well-written. Several other, non-contributing editors such as Yobmod, Tryptofish, myself, and others have repeatedly questioned "what's so wrong with this article?" After the only remaing issue with WP:PARITY was addressed, there's no reason keep these maintainence tags up. While wikipedia does not work by majority, the fact that no other editor is able to understand ronz's application of the three aforementioned policies, suggests that that application is flawed, and there is no consensus for accepting it. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 01:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the tags. After discussions with Zappernapper, it appears they were removed in bad faith.
I've explained that I will be setting aside time to work on these issues. I'm sorry that editors are not happy with this. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The lede section does not meet WP:LEDE. I'd pointed this out long ago, but suggested that it should wait until the other problems are dealt with first. Since there appears to be consensus that no one wants to deal with the other problems, it's time to get the lede in line with the article. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to try to guess on this. However, anyone who sees a problem with the lede is welcome to explain it. PSWG1920 ( talk) 00:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I just found this essay, and thought the editors here would find it as helpful as I am: WP:FLAT -- Ronz ( talk) 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this tag: The Woods report has already been the subject of an RfC and a rejected request for arbitration. Seeyou also canvassed extensively regarding this matter. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. This led to a warning from an administrator. Eventually, SamuelTheGhost added details of the Woods report to Behavioral optometry, where it is more relevant, and the conclusions are made clear by the final quote. Also, the AAO review (by which this discussion started) states that studies have found "an improvement in subjective visual acuity in myopes with no corresponding improvement in objective visual acuity", a conclusion which is reflected in the section which is now tagged. PSWG1920 ( talk) 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
A1 :Replying to Seeyou's questions. First, besides the AAO report's general statements and the specific information SamuelTheGhost has provided at Behavioral optometry, just last night I found Beach's report, in which Woods is quoted: "the training had no effect on the myopia, but educated some patients to interpret retinal images more carefully."
A1 :In regards to your second question, it appears that Woods himself stated that what he was testing was not the Bates method. From Behavioral optometry: "This method of visual training has neither in theory nor practice any relation to the so-called Bates theory".
A3 :There really isn't an absolute definition of the Bates method, and I think the definition which was previously here {Quackenbush's) proves that. It ended with "commonly misunderstood as only "eye exercises"—even by many "Bates Method" teachers." That right there shows the problem with defining it objectively. We have to play it by ear. PSWG1920 ( talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Please explain the POV tags which you added to Bates method on the article's talk page. Such tags always require discussion from the editor that has added them. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
First, I think the above quote from Woods speaks for itself. Secondly, if you read the AAO review, it summarizes the results of several studies, not just Woods. PSWG1920 ( talk) 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I may have resolved this in a way that will be acceptable to everyone. See the new " General research" subsection. PSWG1920 ( talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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. |
It's been awhile since I read this article so I am essentially coming here with a fresh perspective. I have to say that I found it difficult to get much further than the Accommodation section, mostly because it was relying on only one source published well over 50 years ago yet our sourced text is phrased as though it was current and factual. This may be possible of course - that there are no updated opinions or research or histories of Bates' view of accommodation - in which case, I guess the 50 year old source will have to do. Are there not other more current sources on the subject which we can cite? -- Levine2112 discuss 05:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Accomdation according to W.H. Bates
I have added a picture about bates point of view on accomodation in the article.
an improvement in subjective visual acuity for patients with myopia who have undertaken visual training has been shown but no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated. [1]
In other words ophthalmology might say here they have found no evidence the shape of the eyeball can change. When you take a look in most general medical encyclopedias you will find an explanation directing to the lens being the cause of myopia or farsightness. Not the shape of the eyeball. Levine2112. Does the current paragraph make this difference in point of view clear ? Does the picture help to make this more clear ?
Seeyou (
talk) 10:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
See also :
Seeyou, the figure on the left shows that the lens basically has to have the appropriate focal length relative to the length of the eyeball otherwise myopia or hypermetropia ensues. This figure is slightly misleading as it emphasises the axial length and discounts the lens strength. You could easily re-draw that figure with standardised eyeball sizes and differing lens strengths and come to the opposite conclusion! It is a schematic diagram, not empirical data. The size of eyeballs does indeed vary from person to person, as does the strength of their lenses. Bates' mistake was to claim that the eyeball varies in length in a single person, from moment to moment and assists in accommodation. This simply doesn't happen. The figure on the left shows that myopia can be easily corrected with concave lenses, rendering the need for complex, lengthy and dubious exercises such as the Bates Method redundant. Famousdog ( talk) 18:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a reference to the 2007 WebMD article to the Accommodation section. I suppose the section could be rewritten to be based mostly on that source. Its "Anatomical Fallacy" section is short, but very much to the point. PSWG1920 ( talk) 05:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
In the spirit of Good Faith, I have decided to take a crack at doing what Ronz has repeatedly suggested (as best I can understand him) regarding the article's major secondary sources.
Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. 1957.
Gardner's chapter is the most generally well-known treatment of the Bates method, and largely serves as an outline for this article. Its content in order:
Elwin Marg, Flashes of clear vision and negative accommodation with reference to the Bates Method of visual training. 1952.
"Flashes of clear vision" are a recurring theme of this paper. Bates' theory of how the eye focuses is discussed, albeit in a less than straightforward manner (this source being a bit difficult to follow is a reason it is not currently used more in the article.) Bates is then quoted at length. His main techniques are listed. Subsequent proponents are mentioned, and it is noted than some did not adhere to Bates' physiological explanation of eye-focusing. Margaret Corbett is discussed and quoted at some length, as is Aldous Huxley. Critical quotes from ophthalmologists Duke-Elder and Lancaster are then presented. Several quotes are then given from a Bates method proponent named Beach regarding "flashes" of clear vision. Experiments are then described which concluded these "flashes" are not the result of any actual change in refractive error.
Overall, Marg takes a tone sympathetic to Bates and his followers, but clearly believes that they have misinterpreted their results.
Philip Pollack, The Truth about Eye Exercises. 1956
The book itself is out-of-print and rare, but Chapter 3 is provided on Quackwatch. SamuelTheGhost has indicated that he has the book and has used other parts of it for information about Margaret Corbett. As far as the freely available chapter, Pollack takes a far more condescending tone than Gardner or Marg. He begins by comparing Bates' work to a medieval handbook. As with Gardner and Marg, Bates' theory of accommodation is addressed near the beginning. Bates' laboratory techniques and reasoning are dismissed. His claims regarding palming, memory, and especially sunning are ridiculed. The risk that a follower of Bates with a sight-threatening condition will neglect conventional care is highlighted. Martin Gardner's summation is quoted (as it is in the introduction here, rightfully so in my opinion.) The chapter ends with a few quotes from medical professionals and the same biographical incident that Martin Gardner refers to.
Time Exercise v. Eyeglasses. 1943
This seems to state that the Bates method works in some cases, but explains the argument against it. A few proponents of the time are mentioned.
Ian Grierson, The Eye Book: Eyes and Eye Problems Explained. 2000
This is probably the best current source we have here which addresses the subject generally. Unfortunately, the relevant discussion only encompasses two pages. Grierson seems fairly neutral regarding the Bates method, surprisingly. His main criticisms are warnings of potential risks, but he seems to think that the efficacy is uncertain.
Frank J. Leavitt, "How to Save the World: Alternatives to Biomedical Research", Ethics in Biomedical Research: International Perspectives. 2007 (multiple authors of the book, but Leavitt wrote the chapter in question.)
This one is positive toward the Bates method, which is held up as a "perfect example of exercising individual health autonomy". Leavitt emphasizes Bates' use of memory, imagination, and relaxation. He claims the Bates method has helped him "tremendously". He acknowledges that some who try it do not get the expected results, but reasons that this is due to the subtleties involved. He argues that the Bates method would be difficult to test due to the role of relaxation and visualization.
WebMD, Natural Vision Correction: Does It Work? 2007
This is essentially a journalistic piece, and presents both sides of the issue. Natural vision teacher Martin Sussman is interviewed.
Visual Training for Refractive Errors, American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2004.
As discussed before, while the source is of high-quality, it is a real stretch to say that this is about the Bates method (which the source does not claim, only referring to Bates in a footnote, as background.) Nonetheless a couple of points are relevant here, namely those referenced in "Claimed success". The earlier summary of this report contained here has been condensed, because it was apparent that its outright removal would not be accepted. PSWG1920 ( talk) 03:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course, a potential knock on the four above sources is their age. However, I think the principle behind WP:PARITY applies here when you consider the limits of the current sources.
Let's now examine how the article uses the sources. Gardner, Marg, and Pollack all expound on Bates' underlying theories. Gardner, Marg, Pollack, Time, Grierson, and Leavitt each discuss, in varying detail and context, techniques which compose the Bates method. The criticisms applicable to individual techniques are reported here. Margaret Corbett is discussed at some length by Marg and apparently also by Pollack. Aldous Huxley's case is perhaps the single most notable aspect of the subject, and has many sources which report on it. Gardner and Marg both explore why the Bates method sometimes seems to get successful results. The AAO review also notes phenomena which may account for perceived improvements. I do not see a single aspect of the subject discussed here which is unimportant per the secondary sources. It's time to at least remove the tags from the top. PSWG1920 ( talk) 03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading the guideline Wikipedia:Controversial articles [ [3] I read something very important regarding controversial articles like the BM.
The mentioned paragraph :
An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.
Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy.
See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
In my opinion the current paragraph about accomodation can very easily be made very clear by presenting fig 4 of Bates book entitled Perfect eyesight without glasses or the book mentioned in the introduction. By presenting a picture like the one below representing the explanation of ophthalmology we make the contorversy very clear. W.H. Bates said the extraocular muscles of the eye are the muscles of accomodation while the accepted theory says the ciliairy muscle which changes the shape of lens is the muscle of accomodation. According to ophthalmology the only solution is to compensate the imbalance of the ciliary muscle / lens by lenses ( glasses or contacts ) or LASIK. Reference any medical encyclopedia or
an improvement in subjective visual acuity for patients with myopia who have undertaken visual training has been shown but no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated. [1]
In other words according to ophthalmology it impossible the shape of the eyeball changes and results in an improvement of visual acuity.
Figure 4 of W.H. Bates own Perfect eyesight without glasses page 11?. [ [4]]
Figure explaining mainstream medicine view on myopia [ [5]]
See also paragraph : [ [6]]
Comment: I'm here in response to the RfC. I have a strong background in neuroscience, and almost no background in opthalmology, so I'm coming here with no prior familiarity with the subject of this article. If I understand correctly, the first figure ("Fig. 4") is from Bates' own publication (please correct me if I misunderstand). It seems to me, then, that it can be quite appropriate to include it in an article such as this, for just the reasons given in the controversial articles page quoted above, even if its creator did make it misleading. As someone looking at it with naive eyes (pun intended), I can easily get from it the idea of eye shape change, and it does make it easier for me to grasp that idea, in a way that text alone does not. On the other hand, comparing it with the second figure, the one showing the mainstream understanding, does get rather complicated for me, and I agree with the editor who said that it makes the page needlessly confusing. So let me please suggest including the first figure, to illustrate the theory that the page discusses (whether true or not), but not including the other figure for comparison. I think, here, it is better to show the Bates theory and state in the text that it is not accepted and maybe misleading, as opposed to attempting to explain in a very technical way how the mainstream model differs. I assume there are also pages you can link to where the mainstream ideas are discussed in more detail. Just an outside opinion, hope it helps. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Include fig 4 The article is about the Bates method not current practice and understanding. The image greatly helps to explain what Bates was talking about. The text should, however, make clear that the images are Bates' views and do not necessarily represent current thinking in the subject. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 12:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Q1) Essentially, there is no controversy in the scientific sense. The only controversy is that unqualified people believe this stuff and promote it in arenas other than the proper ones, making it a controversy about science, but not a scientific controversy. Thus proper description of the controversy would entail describing it as a bunch of rank amateurs who are unable to come to grips with the evidence.
Q2)No opinion. I don't think that the image in question is all that useful in any case. If the image fig. 4 is included, it needs to be captioned in the way I mentioned.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose including this particular image. I can tell from above comments that if it becomes part of the article, figuring out how to contextualize it is going to be a huge problem. If any images are included in the section in question, they should be from a secondary source which explains Bates' view of accommodation and the orthodox view (and of course, they must have a free license.) That would be the best way to avoid breaching WP:UNDUE or WP:SYN. But really, I think the section does fine explaining the concept on an elementary level without the use of images. If readers want to know more, the section links to articles regarding the anatomy in question. PSWG1920 ( talk) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
PSWG1920 It is so easy ti explain. The picture below shows three conditions of the eye caused by the lens ( ophthalmology )or the eyeball ( W.H. Bates ). Controversy described. And you can not do anything about it ( ophthalmology ) you can do somethting ? ( W.H. Bates ). Seeyou ( talk) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Tryptofish, let me revisit your initial comment.
On the other hand, comparing it with the second figure, the one showing the mainstream understanding, does get rather complicated for me, and I agree with the editor who said that it makes the page needlessly confusing. So let me please suggest including the first figure, to illustrate the theory that the page discusses (whether true or not), but not including the other figure for comparison.
I would agree with you that presenting both images for the purpose of comparing them would make things too complicated. But showing only the illustration of Bates' model would be seen by some as giving it Undue weight, and probably rightly so. The best answer then is to leave out both images. PSWG1920 ( talk) 02:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I also came here from the RFC and appreciate that the controversy may be a little more complicated that it would appear at first sight. Perhaps someone could explain and clarify a few things for me. Do the drawings in question come from a publication by Bates? What exactly is the objection to including them? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Taking another look at the illustration in question (Fig. 4), I've realized that all it indicates, on an uncomplicated level, is that the hypermetropic eye is too short and the myopic eye is too long. By my understanding, that is in agreement with the mainstream medical view. Where Bates deviated from that was in his belief that the eyeball's shape was controlled by muscles, rather than being structural in form, and that the normal eye was continuously changing shape to focus at different distances. The illustration in question does nothing useful to show that, though the article's text explains it well enough. So there's another reason not to include the image. PSWG1920 ( talk) 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Q to PSWG1920, Can you make clear if you are still refusing to include fig 4 or are you going to accept fig. 4 for including ? Seeyou ( talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)Since this talk looks like it's going to be reviewed externally, I would like to make the following comment here as an editor who came here in response to the RfC, and was not previously involved. This situation looks to me like a sad case, where, on one side, are editors who want to push a pseudoscience POV and who resort inappropriately to grievance-type procedures, and, on the other side, are editors who over-react and dig in their heels, opposing even reasonable suggestions from outside editors to allow the presentation of material that would help readers better understand that pseudoscience, which is a big part of the subject matter of this page. It seems to me that each side does little to explain their positions in a way that could work towards consensus. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading this paragraph I saw someone added the text
These simple diagrams from PSWG by Bates, incorrectly show flattened and elongated eyes being responsible for hypermetropia and myopia. Bates beleived extraocular muscles acted on the eyes to produce these results.
This text is incorrect ! Bates picture is correct ! The shape of the eyevball of a myopic really is elongated. And the eyeball of a farsighted eye is shorter. PSWG1920 also mentions Bates picture is correct. PSWG1920 says :
Taking another look at the illustration in question (Fig. 4), I've realized that all it indicates, on an uncomplicated level, is that the hypermetropic eye is too short and the myopic eye is too longBy my understanding, that is in agreement with the mainstream medical view.
Seeyou ( talk) 21:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This picture shows what the bates method regarding the most common eyeconditions is all about ! Why is not this picture in the article ? Can some of the dominant editors please explain. Seeyou ( talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The picture below I created myself with pictures available in this wikipedia encyclopedia
The controversy of the Bates method is according to the current editors of this article : Opthalmology ( science ) versus Bates ( controversial ) = lens of the eye ( influenced by the ciliary muscle ) versus shape of the eyeball ( influenced by the extraocular muscles).
I removed the part of Lancaster's quote which stated that Huxley admitted that his "visual acuity has not improved in any extraordinary way." While Lancaster did say that, his wording was highly misleading, as it is clear that Huxley did claim great improvement relative to where he started from. What he admitted was that his vision was still very far from normal. PSWG1920 ( talk) 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have read this article and discussions on and off over a number of months and this is the first time I've decided to actually post something. My background includes many years of study in the Bates Method, with an interest in its history and study of the threads of its teaching tradition; on the way collecting stories and case studies.
Firstly I would like to express appreciation for the extraordinary amount of work that has gone into creating this article and to confirm, that presenting a fair, neutral and accurate presentation of the Bates Method is an exquisitely difficult task. To that end I'm going to put forward a few ideas that may help to clarify why it is such a problematic subject. While many people can understand the controversial aspects of Bates' theories, for example that of accommodation, the underlying schism in understanding lies deeper than that. I do not claim to be neutral on the subject, far from it, but I hope I can help by providing some insights into the nature of the problem from a different point of view.
I can appreciate the clear attempts in trying to attain independent assessments of the method. I wish to point out that the problems in obtaining truly independent source material lies not in raising doubts about the integrity nor intelligence of the sources quoted, but rather in the comprehension of the nature of the method and what it represents.
I can perhaps explain this better by way of examples:
1. If a person with no prior knowledge on the subject, reads a book about orange trees, learning about its characteristics, shape and colour of the fruit and a description of how to eat it, they will have a fair shot at identifying an orange tree with fruit if they happen to see one.
Now, by chance the person stumbles upon a lemon tree - everything seems to be in order, perhaps the colour of the fruit is more yellow than what they'd assumed, however, they've heard it's very good eating and so tuck in to a very sour and disappointing meal.
--
Perhaps not the best of illustrations, as the mistake in color requires a little stretch in belief, however, it is meant to illustrate that a person can be mistaken in their understanding, when purely reliant on the written word. At the very least, hopefully it will help to lead on to the next example:
2. A person reads a book about the Bates method, applying all their insights and previously learned knowledge to the new ideas and concepts being introduced. They then go forth, perhaps trying out some of the ideas, discovering either a small degree of success, or even better; or, as in many cases, none at all. The crux of the matter is you don't know if the person has stepped away from their reading, holding a lemon tree or an orange tree in their heads.
--
While this illustration may at first appear innocuous, it is in fact at the core of the controversy that surrounds the method. The method involves becoming aware of the nature of your own thought - and as such it potentially alters the fundamental structure of your understanding. As radical as that might sound it's actually rarely as dramatic as all that, but the deeper implication is that in general the level of misunderstanding about the method; what it is, how it works, and what it achieves, is almost universal.
In basic terms, if I were to look into the background of the independent sources used in the article, and to ask 'which of these learned people have undertaken a comprehensive set of lessons or training in the method?' What would the answer be? My guess is pretty much, nil.
So we are left with an odd situation: The ease of misunderstanding of the method - and I can't over-emphasize how common this is - coupled with the requirement for independent sources, means that: The more independent the source, the more likely it becomes that accuracy is lost. It is equivalent to accepting the assessment of oranges by people who have only partaken of lemons.
What to do about this I'm not sure. The independent sources, as necessary as they are, in a sense become less useful through lack of accuracy, yet from a conventional understanding of eyesight, they are nothing but accurate. In fact I'd have to point out, that the very independence from the method - in this case - creates a bias by default: "I understand the method as this, and (therefore) this is what I refute." Unfortunately that turns the issue of independent sources into an entirely one sided argument - and in the cold light of day, that is not neutral. -- ReTracer ( talk) 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
Seeyou ( talk) 21:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Samuel, a "maker of wheelchairs" might mock attempts at dieting that have plenty of support (like a calorie controlled diet plus exercise), but that would be stupid and shortsighted. He could also mock ridiculous fad diets that either don't work or "work" for reasons other than that suggested by the authors (c.f. Atkins) and be on fairly solid ground. Also, thanks for the subtle implication that I am mocking the BM. I have no need to mock it, I have only to point out its failings of logic, fact and its inability to generate and testable scientific hypotheses (except for the ones it has already failed on, such as Bates' theory of accommodation). Famousdog ( talk) 01:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok... this needs to end. PSWG has infinitely more patience than i ever could. He and the other regular editors here have spent far too much time and effort trying to placate ONE other editor's views which cryptically "should already be clear" and merely requotes wiki-policy without actually tying specific policies to specific prose. The consensus on this article is clear, and that it is FINE. details on different things can always be cleared up, but as far as concerns regarding WP:FRINGE, NPOV, and UNDUE - this article is well-written. Several other, non-contributing editors such as Yobmod, Tryptofish, myself, and others have repeatedly questioned "what's so wrong with this article?" After the only remaing issue with WP:PARITY was addressed, there's no reason keep these maintainence tags up. While wikipedia does not work by majority, the fact that no other editor is able to understand ronz's application of the three aforementioned policies, suggests that that application is flawed, and there is no consensus for accepting it. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 01:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the tags. After discussions with Zappernapper, it appears they were removed in bad faith.
I've explained that I will be setting aside time to work on these issues. I'm sorry that editors are not happy with this. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The lede section does not meet WP:LEDE. I'd pointed this out long ago, but suggested that it should wait until the other problems are dealt with first. Since there appears to be consensus that no one wants to deal with the other problems, it's time to get the lede in line with the article. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to try to guess on this. However, anyone who sees a problem with the lede is welcome to explain it. PSWG1920 ( talk) 00:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I just found this essay, and thought the editors here would find it as helpful as I am: WP:FLAT -- Ronz ( talk) 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this tag: The Woods report has already been the subject of an RfC and a rejected request for arbitration. Seeyou also canvassed extensively regarding this matter. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. This led to a warning from an administrator. Eventually, SamuelTheGhost added details of the Woods report to Behavioral optometry, where it is more relevant, and the conclusions are made clear by the final quote. Also, the AAO review (by which this discussion started) states that studies have found "an improvement in subjective visual acuity in myopes with no corresponding improvement in objective visual acuity", a conclusion which is reflected in the section which is now tagged. PSWG1920 ( talk) 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
A1 :Replying to Seeyou's questions. First, besides the AAO report's general statements and the specific information SamuelTheGhost has provided at Behavioral optometry, just last night I found Beach's report, in which Woods is quoted: "the training had no effect on the myopia, but educated some patients to interpret retinal images more carefully."
A1 :In regards to your second question, it appears that Woods himself stated that what he was testing was not the Bates method. From Behavioral optometry: "This method of visual training has neither in theory nor practice any relation to the so-called Bates theory".
A3 :There really isn't an absolute definition of the Bates method, and I think the definition which was previously here {Quackenbush's) proves that. It ended with "commonly misunderstood as only "eye exercises"—even by many "Bates Method" teachers." That right there shows the problem with defining it objectively. We have to play it by ear. PSWG1920 ( talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Please explain the POV tags which you added to Bates method on the article's talk page. Such tags always require discussion from the editor that has added them. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
First, I think the above quote from Woods speaks for itself. Secondly, if you read the AAO review, it summarizes the results of several studies, not just Woods. PSWG1920 ( talk) 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I may have resolved this in a way that will be acceptable to everyone. See the new " General research" subsection. PSWG1920 ( talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)