Talk:Bates method

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Fringe guidance applies to this article?

FYI, I have posted a query about this article to WP:FTN. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've replied there, but I'll reply here as well: yes, the Bates method is a fringe theory par excellence. But as far as I can see, any inconsistencies with WP:FRINGE are relatively minor. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What specific problems do you see? I think the second paragraph of the lede should be rewritten and perhaps placed at the end of the lede. The "Claimed success" section heading should probably be made more descriptive. Leavitt's opinions are probably being used inappropriately per FRINGE and with undue weight. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was the Leavitt support and the claimed successes which stood out in particular - but perhaps more generally I didn't "get" from reading the article that this was a quack treatment (which it appears to be). The phrase in the lede "garnered much opposition" is a bit weird, and the overall tenor of the intro suggest this is perhaps something which is just in dispute within eye medicine, rather tham firmly decided by the mainstream.

Further, it appears there is some kind of successor to the Bates method which might be roughly characterized as "The Bates Method without the dangerous stuff"; but is this "neo-Bates" method sourced? and is the article clear whether it is describing at any juncture the true Bates method, or some later reinterpretation of it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "gathered much opposition" is not strong enough. I carried out the GA review for this article back in 2009, and the statements were much less weaselly at that time. The Leavitt stuff is also new cruft. (The article somehow fell out of my watchlist in the meantime, I don't remember when.) Regarding "neo-Bates", there are numerous people who praise his ideas but have modified them. The phrase "Natural Vision Improvement" is a sort of code for neo-Bates -- see for example http://visioneducators.com/. Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, comparing the article now with the article at GA time, it seems to have suffered a certain amount of POV-drift with removal or criticism and weaseling of wording. I have restored some content to the state is was in at GA review time, and made a few other tweaks and I think this addresses the fringe issue -- see what you think ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what others think. There's been a great deal of discussion here. Such changes might be seen as ignoring four years of consensus-building.

One concern I have are statements about practitioners in general. I can't imagine how anyone can make reliable statements to the effect without reference to surveys or other broad data-gathering tools. Since this is quackery and pseudoscience we're dealing with, we shouldn't trust individual practioners' judgement on what others are doing - after all, we can't trust their judgement on what they are accomplishing with their practice. Seems this would follow from RS, FRINGE, and NPOV... --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A comparison between the current version of the article and its state at GA time shows that is not that much difference, and I think some of the more POV edits weren't backed by worked-out consensus. For example, this deletion of sourced content ... which claims (incorrectly as it turns out) that the material isn't backed by the sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:38, 28 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)

If the claim is "fairly common" then it doesn't require super-strong sourcing to back it; but on the other hand, claims of worth for the Method are extraordinary, and so would (Leavitt isn't such a source). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is not a "claim of worth" for the method. One could be completely against the Bates method, but still think that the "dead-end" argument is not convincing. Granted, Leavitt does seem to believe in the Bates method's efficacy, but he says that he's discussing it not to recommend it, but to point out methodological problems with testing non-standard methods. PSWG1920 (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the issue here is the title, "Dead-end" ? Isn't the actual argument presented simply about obscurity and lack of effect? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps "Obscurity" would be a better section title. PSWG1920 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the section content, it is (as you say) not backed by the strongest source, and isn't saying anything new the article doesn't say elsewhere. Maybe it would be an idea simply to remove this small section and work the following two ones into the earlier "Results and criticism" section? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That section used to be only "Results". I would think that the sungazing criticism would be better placed in the "Sunning" subsection, if it adds anything that wasn't already there. Criticisms are covered throughout the article, so there is really no good reason to tack on "and criticisms" to any particular section. The "General criticisms" section is needed to report on criticisms which don't neatly fit elsewhere. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the points about obscurity, but they could possibly be moved to the "Results" section. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Given FRINGE, we need more emphasis on why his theories are fringe, not less. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference Misquote Defended

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)

Seems fine. Giving weight as proposed grossly misrepresents the studies and conclusions.--Ronz (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the proposed changes and the rationale don't take into account the WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and WP:NPOV concerns and discussions relevant to this article.

This article is about Bates method. Per the policies mentioned, it should include and prominently present the scientific and medical consensus about Bates method and highly related claims/therapies/etc. However, the details about individual studies, such as being proposed, seems to misrepresent the studies specifically, and the consensus in general. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You must be accusing me of altering the authors' conclusion paragraph. Read it and compare it with I quoted above. It is a simple cut-and-paste. What you mean is that accurately summarizing the authors' conclusion would tend to defeat your goal of suppressing fringe science. This is a violation of WP:NPOV Some of the fringe science of today is the mainstream of tomorrow. A mighty list may be found at http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html. Incorrectly summarizing a reference to say exactly the opposite is a literary offense. A more accurate summary would state that the authors found credible studies supporting eye exercises for a number of disorders but consider treatments for which they found no studies reported to remain controversial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.84.216 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Erm, what? which words support the contention that "the authors found credible studies supporting eye exercises"? They state the what the mainstream view is, and so must Wikipedia. That's basic WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand either. --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree - we need to be careful not to boost fringe notions. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:25, 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)

"The editors will not permit me to gracefully concede that they are right and terminate this discussion" Not at all. Talk pages are meant to be records of discussions. See WP:TALK --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the topic "Concerns of Bias" that was posted by ‎ 68.160.20.125, 24 October 2012? It began "This is the most biased, one-sided article I've ever seen on Wikipedia...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." It was on this page until very recently.96.235.157.194 (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was automatically archived [1] to Talk:Bates_method/Archive_18#Concerns_of_bias --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Anecdote

In response to this revert, what is it being used as? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

An example.

The Swift archives are inaccessible currently as far as I can tell. Can anyone find the actual article?

Given Talk:Bates_method#Fringe_guidance_applies_to_this_article.3F, I think we should be extremely careful in removing any more skeptical information and references when it's obvious we've too little as is. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Here it is. There was a follow-up the next week, if you're interested.

I have no opinion on whether or not this point belongs in the article. James Randi is well-known, and there is no reason to doubt this story. Samuel is correct, however, that it is anecdotal, and any positive anecdote about the Bates method would be excluded from Wikipedia unless it had been specifically reported on by a secondary source deemed valid. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"An example", as Ronz puts it, is subject to the same rules in wikipedia as anything else. But in any case, it's worth looking at what this reference actually demonstrates. The immediate certain implication of "James Randi related that his father, shortly after discarding glasses on the advice of Bates' book, wrecked his car" is that James Randi was willing publicly to portray his own father as a fool. This is amusing in its own way, but not relevant to the matter in hand. If we believe the story, we can conclude that the father was indeed a fool, since Bates never suggested that discarding glasses, on its own, immediately leads to perfect vision.

The SWIFT material cited reinforces this conclusion, but invites another as well. If I had, in complete ignorance of Bates, read only what Randi says there, I'd note that it was a torrent of abuse devoid of relevant factual information or sensible argument, and would suppose that there must be something in this Bates thing if this is the quality of its opposition. But then I'm a sceptic, you see. That's what scepticism means. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's not waste time dwelling on hypotheticals. The Randi reference is used as an example in conjunction with the other source, elaborating on the information. However, a better source should be used for the other source so we're following FRINGE more carefully.

Also on the topic of the other source, how can any source be reliable for claims on what "most teachers" claim? --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The "other source" is presumably referring to

Grierson, Ian (2000). "Exercises for Eyes as an Alternative to Glasses". The Eye Book: Eyes and Eye Problems Explained. Liverpool University Press. pp. 58–60. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Let's compare:

• The Grierson book is by a professor of ophthalmology at a respected British university, published by the university press at the same place, peer reviewed, and written in a sober, scholarly, factual way. As WP:RS it is unimpeachable.
• The Randi piece is by a stage magician, published by himself, unreviewed, and written as an intemperate rant.

Now which needs to be replaced by "a better source"? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Two concerns:

First, a MEDRS source might apply.

Second, to repeat myself, "how can any source be reliable for claims on what "most teachers" claim?" --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

First, WP:MEDRS has "Books published by university presses or the National Academy of Sciences, on the other hand, tend to be well-researched and useful for most purposes" and he's a professor of ophthalmology. What more do you want?

Second, there are immediate and obvious answers to that question, but to start giving them here would invite a pointless exercise in speculation and WP:OR. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think it meets MEDRS, great!

As for the second, you'll need to elaborate. I already mentioned it might need to be removed earlier. Now's the time to find reasons for keeping it. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Samuel about Grierson's book. In fact, if he had devoted more than two pages to this subject, he'd probably be cited many more times in this article.

Here's the source text for the statement in question. Perhaps we could use a direct quote if that would be better. On the down side, Bates therapists do recommend that those who wear eye glasses or contact lenses, should go back to their optician and get a lesser correction or indeed abandon their glasses altogether. The under-correction means that vision will be poorer than normal, which has safety implications when driving a car, for example. In their defence, they do recommend that people don't correct beneath the minimum legal driving requirement (see later in this chapter) and they also have eye exercises specifically for drivers. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

How about I remove it while people think more about my concerns? --Ronz (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If by "it" you mean only the last sentence, I'm afraid I must object. As I see it we have the following:

• WP:RS is established on the basis of authorship and publication process. We have agreed that Grierson qualifies.
• Anything stated in a WP:RS is presumed to be wiki-truth unless overridden by an even better source. An editor's "concerns" (which I do not share) are not sufficient. There are things Grierson says which I don't agree with, but I have to put up with that unless I can find sourced contradiction of them.
• Although it is thus unnecessary to argue further, it can be pointed out that many Bates teachers have written books or describe their methods in some detail on the web-sites, and they discuss things with each other in their association, so there is ample data on which to base judgements as to what "most teachers" do. They're in general not daft (whatever Ronz may think) and being cautious about discarding glasses and then driving is elementary self-defence on their part. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hence the FRINGE problems in this article.

Just because a source is reliable for some information, doesn't mean it is reliable for all information.

Just because a source states something, doesn't make it appropriate to include in an encyclopedia article.

"Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects." --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what "Hence the FRINGE problems in this article" means.
• Fully reliable sources, like Grierson, are considered reliable for everything they say unless contradicted by better sources. There are certainly cases where unreliable sources can be used in a discretionary way, but this isn't one of them.
• If you're saying "Corrective lenses and safety" is a non-significant subject, it can be omitted. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"Hence the FRINGE problems", meaning that we're simply disregarding WP:FRINGE and not following WP:NOT and WP:NPOV as we should given the subject matter of this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

We are all editing in accordance with wikipedia policies as best we can. You'll have to be more specific in your complaint. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Book by optometrist

If anyone is interested in doing considerable work on the article, I'd like to note that the 1956 book, The Truth About Eye Exercises, by optometrist Philip Pollack, is now fully available online. Since it was published before 1964 and its copyright was apparently not renewed after 28 years, it is public domain. This book could fill in some historical details, and replace some of the current references to Gardner and to Bates himself, both of which have been the cause of some controversy in the past. A few years ago I would have taken this on myself, but I really don't want to get deeply involved in this article again. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Good reference! I am particularly interested in the professional qualifications of Dr. Harold M. Peppard, since I had an aunt who studied with him and was able to discard her glasses permanently. While some describe him as an optometrist, my aunt said he was an osteopath and Dr. Pollock confirms this on page 39. Today in the United States an osteopath has the same medical practice rights as an M.D., although this was not recognized by all states at the same time. Although Dr. Pollock speaks disparagingly of Dr. Peppard's qualifications, they may have exceeded Dr. Pollock's.96.235.157.194 (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Pollock makes a rather extreme statment on page 50: "Bates practitioners assert that glasses are not only unnecessary but are harmful to the eyes. The truth is that glasses may prevent the eyes from getting worse..." After an extensive search I have not been able to find a single concurring professional opinion. People who are fitted with glasses at an early age and wear them constantly nearly always require stronger and stronger prescriptions as years go by. Ask any optometrist or anyone who wears strong glasses. A typical professional opinion may be found at http://www.specsavers.co.uk/ask-the-optician/will-my-vision-get-worse-if-i-dont-wear-my-glasses/96.235.157.194 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. What Pollack appears to be saying in context is that going without glasses for a long time can make one's vision less correctable, i.e. even glasses won't give 20/20. This was written in 1956, so there could be more data since then. If true, this is a significant risk of following the Bates method, so if there's anything more recent to confirm this, it should be included in the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

New article?

I suggested on the Behavioral optometry talk page that perhaps there should be an Alternative treatments for myopia article. Or perhaps Alternative treatments for refractive errors. Not all such treatment is the Bates method, and for whatever good Bates did, I see now that the ubiquitous association with him has given vision improvement a bad name. Some behavioral optometrists do treat nearsightedness or farsightedness, but that is not the primary focus of the field, so the Behavioral optometry may not be sufficient either. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)