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.

Infobox Pseudoscience suddenly appeared on 8 February without any announcement or discussion here. I think we need to talk about whether it should be there at all, and if so, what its content should be, particularly as regards the entry "Subsequent proponents", or "Current proponents" as it was called until very recently. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 09:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I added it after an automated peer review recommended an infobox. The pseudoscience infobox template itself did not seem very well developed, so I took the liberty of changing "current" to "subsequent". "Current" is less than ideal anyway because it can at any time become outdated in regards to a specific individual. I think Zappernapper made some edits to it as well. PSWG1920 ( talk) 09:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The automated peer review said "You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox". If there were an infobox "alternative medicine" it would undoubtedly have been appropriate. To use "pseudoscience" is to change the balance of the POV argument. As for the subsequent/current proponents, by changing it you have allowed the implication that there are no current proponents. Huxley and Corbett are as dead as Bates himself. What about the many current proponents? SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 09:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to "pseudoscience", see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience. "Subsequent" can include current. I will add Meir Schneider to the list, since we have the Israeli news broadcast featuring him. PSWG1920 ( talk) 10:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether your reference proves anything. In any case BM isn't "science" at all, it's a method, irrespective of its "scientific" basis, which we all admit is currently weak. Why not create an infobox for "Alternative medicine" and use that? As for the subsequent proponents, you seem to be working on the assumption that it only those already featured can be included. There are a lot of BM authors and teachers. Even though probably none of them is individually notable enough for an article, that doesn't stop us from listing a few names. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 10:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam, while I agree that the use of a "pseudoscience" infobox might be POV, I think your issue regarding the use of current/subsequent is both making a mountain out of a molehill and a bit of a straw man. The term subsequent by definition includes current. What's the problem? If its such a big deal, edit the infobox to have the headings "Tortured Genius", "Dead Disciples" and "Currently At Large"... Famousdog ( talk) 14:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record: "BM isn't "science" at all". You said it. But you touch on an important issue. A lot of BM believers think the BM is science, or at least backed up by science, and a lots of proponents couch their theories in scientific language. Just look at the discussion of axial elongation versus lens deformation above. That's the hallmark of a pseudoscience, so the term is highly appropriate. Famousdog ( talk) 14:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a mental image problem with simultaneously making a mountain out of a molehill and being a straw man. Could you draw a picture to help me? I totally support your suggestion about the infobox. As for what "lots of proponents" say, could you give references? As I've often said on this page, modern BM teachers don't talk about things like axial elongation at all. They talk about natural healing and the more cultured ones about "vis medicatrix naturae". BM is a method which stands or falls solely on whether it works. In general its advocates believe that it will in time prove to have a scientific basis, but in the mean time they want to get on with helping people to see better, and are succeeding to at least some extent, even if the result is only "subjective" or the placebo effect. Nobody has a satisfactory theory of refractive error, and the BM people no longer claim to offer one except in the broadest terms, namely "strain", which you rightly have said is so vague as to be fairly meaningless. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Status as pseudoscience

Regarding SamuelTheGhost's edit summary that "those who think BM is pseudoscience also think all alternative medicine is pseudoscience", I don't think that's necessarily true. Some alternative medicine would likely fall under "questionable science" rather than "generally considered pseudoscience" per the arbcom case. While I don't really think the Bates method is pseudoscience, it's apparent to me that that's what it is generally considered, and the arbcom case is clear that it should be categorized that way. By extension the pseudoscience infobox is also appropriate, though it could be replaced if a better infobox were found. PSWG1920 ( talk) 19:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Obvious, blatant pseudoscience. The fact that is pseudoscience is one of the most notable aspects of Bates method. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Primarily the method is an educational process so there have been problems in co-ordinating and organizing comprehensive studies of the method. This is partly due to the nature of the method's approach to vision, but perhaps predominantly due to the backgrounds of those who practice and teach it today - only very rarely do any teachers of the method have a training in scientific method. SamuelTheGhost summed it up extremely well when s/he said above: In general its advocates believe that it will in time prove to have a scientific basis, but in the mean time they want to get on with helping people to see better, and are succeeding to at least some extent, even if the result is only "subjective" or the placebo effect.

Recently I had a 2 hour meeting with an optometrist to discuss these problems and to be able to get advice on just how a study might be begun. a full blown study with a large enough population base would take some years to complete and be costly - until there is enough basic evidence on a smaller scale that kind of interest and money is hard to raise. However he really did feel that the goal for small-scale initial studies was well worth pursuing because he personally had a small number of clients whom he had seen needed their prescriptions reduced, having undergone a series of lessons in the method.

Clearly things do happen, and equally clearly the results are variable as the method is educational, with all the vagaries that come with working with people who think, learn and respond with different personalities and the concomitant variable capacities for change. How to co-ordinate it and categorize it has been the puzzler for the last 90 years, compounded by the generally non-scientific basis of current teachers of the method. Bates' own suggested theories he put forward with 'considerable trepidation', according to the forward of PSWG. His subsequent dogmatic and at times antagonistic approach through the rest of the book caused more problems than help, and most certainly from the point of view of those who have studied vision from the orthodox viewpoint, it has provided a long standing red-herring that diverts away from looking into a different approach to understanding eyesight.-- ReTracer ( talk) 09:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

> "subjective" or the placebo effect. Of course you have got the subjective and placebo effect, but you have also got the measurable objective effects. In measurable meaning real objective changes in the shape of the eyeball, brain, condition of muscles, habitual breathing etc. Or improvement in distance vision. Very easily to measure with an eyechart by yourself. ( When people measure an improvement in their distance vision. Do they believe they have improved their vision or do they experience they have improved it ?! ) When people really change a habit which influences vision/visionhabit. ( e.g. only a nutritional habit can have this effect ) So not as an exercise but as an habit. Or as an exercise done on a very regular basis ! NVI or BM happens by one very simple law. It is called the law of adaptation ! Described very clearly be the author Dan Millman.

Accommodation is a law as certain as the law of gravity. Yet most of us don’t trust the law because of self-doubt or confusion. You may wonder, Can I really become good at this. Will I be able to accomplish my goal Will I find succes. A more useful question is not Can I, but rather how can I. Progress is mechanical : If you practice something over time with attention and commitment to improve, you will. ^[1]

Seeyou ( talk) 21:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

perhaps in the spirit of compromise we should try to find someone (a scientist) who claims the Bates method is pseudoscience, since ascribing our own labels to it is apparently contentious. Plenty of people have stated that other well-known concepts are pseudoscience and so it is neutral for us to label those articles as such. But for us to label something as strict pseudoscience is technically original research and while i might agree with that determination, as per WP:CITE if someone is contesting it, we have the obligation to find someone reputable who has classified it that way. It shouldn't be too hard. - ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel _Alexandria 04:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

while it proved harder than i thought, because i wanted to avoid Gardner's claims. According to the suit brought against the See Clearly Method posted on casewatch

...The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (2000), noting that Dr. Bates was the first exponent of the theory that visual defects could be cured by throwing away one's glasses and following a prescribed regimen of eye exercises, states that this idea was 'one of the most persuasive pieces of pseudoscience in the early part of the 20th century ...'

I think we can cite the encyclopedia directly. i did also find somewhere where Famousdog called it pseudoscience, but i don't think we can use that :) - ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel _Alexandria 05:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Zappernapper, I have got a strong reliable source. ( Strong because it involves multiple investigated researches. ) [1]. This link used be in the references. I don't know if it still present. Quackery equals pseudo-science. When something is controversial it is not quackery. Is it ? Seeyou ( talk) 20:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

there were actually several sources like that one which called the BM everything short of pseudoscience. While we could play the semantics game, I just figured it would be best to cite a source which called it pseudoscience explictly, in order to avoid people accusing us of original research. - ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel _Alexandria 10:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Zappernapper said : While we could play the semantics game. It is not about playing semantics games. When you can interpret whatever you read as how you read it. You don't have to discuss anything. The result will be opinion based ,low quality ,unbalanced or polarized articles. Seeyou ( talk) 15:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the ArbCom decision and it says Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.. Looking at the PubMed ref A systematic review of the applicability and efficacy of eye exercises. seems to indicate the Bates Method meets the ArbCom definition. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See this link : [2]. ( controversial but is it correct ? )I don't think it is wise to compare the BM article with any other article. We strive for quality and no ORIGINAL RESEARCH for obvious reasons ! Seeyou ( talk) 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful to Ruhrfisch for posing the question in this way. The PubMed ref concludes "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." This is a totally different judgement from "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". In particular the use of the words "as yet" and "remains" imply that clear scientific evidence might reasonably become available at some time in the future, which is not what scientists expect of astrology, for instance. PubMed clearly states that it regards the use of eye exercises as so far unproven, and controversial. It neither says not implies that it sees it as pseudoscience. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 11:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We should avoid any Original research. If we accept Original research we can discuss for ages without making any progress. Seeyou ( talk) 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm here retyping some excerpts for the Woods report, which I hope will calm the arguments above. I feel compelled to add that IMHO the final conclusion here does not follow from the rest. Quotation begins:

(p. 29) "Technique of Eye Examination"

"... Determination of the visual acuity without correction of each eye at 20 feet or a shorter distance when necessary. Four charts were used for this purpose: (a) Snellen chart with letters, (b) Snellen chart with numbers, (c) Landolt broken-ring chart, and (d) Snellen letter-E chart. ..."

(pp. 56-57) "Summary and Conclusions" (complete)

"A series of 103 myopic individuals were selected from a total of 130 applicants. The uncorrected visual acuity of these patients was recorded, a cycloplegic instilled, and the retinoscopic and static refractions determined. These 103 myopic patients were then returned to a group of optometrists and psychologists for a course of visual training designed to improve their uncorrected vision. At the end of this visual training the patients were again examined to determine what change had ocurred in their uncorrected vision. It was found that 30 of these patients, or 29 percent, showed a low-grade improvement on all charts. This improvement averaged an increase of 27 points in the percentage visual acuity. A second group of 31 patients, or 30 percent, did not show a consistent improvement on all four charts but did show an overall improvement in both eyes which averaged 14.7 points in the percentage visual acuity. As far as could be determined the improvement in these two groups was not consistently maintained. A third group of 32 patients, or 31 percent, showed practically no change in the percentage visual acuity. A fourth group of 10 patients, or 9 percent, showed a decrease in the percentage visual acuity of 10.8 points.

"The changes in the percentage visual acuity noted was found to lie within the limits of error of subjective testing of the visual acuity. Also the estimating of change on the basis of percentage visual acuity weights the scales in favor of improvement in those who have high myopia.

"The maximum average increase noted in group I was between one and three lines improvement in the Snellen scale. it was believed by the examiners that education in the correct interpretation of a blurred visual image was the chief factor in the improvement noted in this group. It was further believed that the exercises produced a beneficial psychological reaction in certain patients towards their visual handicap, regardless of whether an actual improvement in visual acuity had occurred.

"With the possible exception of educating some patients to interpret blurred retinal images more carefully and of convincing some others that they could see better even though there was no visual improvement, this study indicates that the visual training used on these patients was of no value for the treatment of myopia."

Sammy, I appreciate your help. But we need a reliable source providing the complete document so it can be verified. We need the Woods report on the www. Elwin Marg report is made fully available. Why can't the woods report made public. Just an idea. Scan the document sent it to ( info-en@wikimedia.org ) and ask them to attach it to this BM article or may be wikipedia can provide anohter solution. Seeyou ( talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be to upload it to Scribd, if he can scan it. PSWG1920 ( talk) 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, at risk of sounding like Ronz, what about copyright? SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 23:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking that! PSWG1920 ( talk) 00:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyrights is not a problem for Elwin Margs report until now. So if the Woods report has a copyrightproblem. Elwin Marg report also has one. Seeyou ( talk) 22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The pdf of Elwin Marg's report is hosted on the domain of the university (Berkeley) where it originated. PSWG1920 ( talk) 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PSWG1920, Don't you understand it is about politics. Uninteresting reports are fully availba, the moment it becomes interesting copyrights block the information to reach the public. PSWG1920 it is not about science or copyrights it is about politics. Are not you interested in the Woods report. It would really improve the quality of this article. Note also the public has indirectly paid for these kind of research they have got the right to read it. Seeyou ( talk) 20:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not really interested in the Woods report, and I don't think any direct reference to it would improve this article. I also think it's clear what Woods' conclusions were from the information we already have, and that what was tested was not anything resembling Bates' method, from what is reported in Behavioral optometry. PSWG1920 ( talk) 21:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[ sigh ] There is an expression: "Two swallows don't make a summer." Science is much the same. It is by design conservative. Two persons out of 103 improving their eyesight in 1946 does not make eye exercises a very effective treatment. As I have explained before, the Woods study demonstrates just how unlikely it is that eye exercises will improve your vision. Go ahead, cite the Woods study. It's a damning indictment of the ineffectiveness of eye exercises and I'm not sure why Seeyou (a NVI enthusiast) wants to publicise it.

On a related topic, this research is publicly available. Its not being hidden away in a locked vault by evil scientists who don't want the world to know The Truth. It is, however, copyrighted material. The American Journal of Ophthalmology only has online editions going back to 1998 and you need to have a subscription. My university library has physical (paper!) issues going back to 1955 (9 years shy, dammit!). I'd need to do an inter-library loan to get a copy. All of which begs the question: Why the hell are we making such a big deal out of something published over 60 years ago that shows that eye exercises are virtually useless? Famousdog ( talk) 14:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My only motive here is to oblige a wiki-colleague. I think it valuable if we have an atmosphere in which we share our information, irrespective of whether we think it supports our own prejudices. In this case it seems that copyright prevents me from re-publishing the document, but if any of you wants to WP:Email me with a name and postal address, I'll send you a photocopy. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sammy just sent your copy to info-en@wikimedia.org. I am sure wikipedia will help. There must also be other options. Just give me a sign when you are ready. I will create a temporary email adres then for you to sent it to. I am now really becoming enthousiastic. Seeyou ( talk) 22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)