Talk:Bates method/Archive 18

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Recent Edit: Autorefraction--> Refraction

Autorefraction is a type of refraction. In this context, the significant information is that the measurement was unchanged, not the method used to determine that measurement. While autorefraction is not based on the subjective responses of the patient, it is typically regarded as less accurate than other refraction methods. Garvin Talk 13:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential references

  • Russell S. Worrall OD, Jacob Nevyas PhD, Stephen Barrett MD. "Eye-Related Quackery". Quackwatch.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Removed from external links. --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I just added both these in as references, relating to the modern application of some Bates techniques in contemporary behavioral optometry and vision therapy Morganfitzp (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

biased language

This article has been on my radar for some time as being very unbalanced. I've taken a stab at bringing it into balance by removing words like "but", "however", "attempt", "purport" and so on, as well as the excessive use of quotes around words like "strain." A good article simply states facts with trying to slant its argument one way or the other. Whether you are an eye doctor or a natural vision therapist, posit Bates arguments as well as the AOA's. Note the difference in tone between thee two lines:

  1. "Bates said that his methods worked, and anecdotal evidence by some patients supports Bates' claims. The American Optometric Association refutes Bates' work, and no evidence of visual improvement has been shown by scientific study. [references]"
  2. "Bates claimed that his highly controversial methods worked, and although a few patients supported Bates' claims, their evidence was purely anecdotal. In contrast, the well-regarded American Optometric Association refutes Bates' work on "strain", and continued subjective scientific study has shown no result of visual improvement as a result of those attempting his methods. [same references]"

I'm condensing things here. Hopefully you get the idea. Morganfitzp (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall, I think it's helpful. I'm not sure of the use of "many" in any of instances where it was added. Do the sources say "many" or something similar? --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks okay to me, with one proviso: the quotation marks around "strain" were an attempt to emphasise that Bates seems to have been talking about something very different from what conventional optometrists refer to as "eyestrain". He seems to have had something more cognitive or perceptual in mind - but this vagueness in his writings is partly why we're still discussing this almost a hundred years later... ;-P Famousdog (c) 20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up the "strain" problem. I agree that we should not replace the word with "eyestrain." This has come up in multiple discussions and Bates is clearly talking about something more than just eyestrain that involves stress in the person on a much larger scale. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason for moving part of the introduction into "General criticisms"? Most of it is redundant by that point. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The lengthy introduction as it was (and currently is again) tips the article into more of an "Anti-Bates Method" article. It should just explain the Bates Method, its basic principles and reasoning, as well as state that there are concerns and arguments against it. The rest of the article is for giving more detail. An article is not a forum for debate, which is what I see happening when statements get trumped with lengthier counter-statements. Criticisms of Bates and his Method belong in the Criticisms section, otherwise it reads less like an encyclopedia article and more like a forum to attack a particular optometric theory. Morganfitzp (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily defending having that text in the intro, but if it is removed from there it should probably just be removed, period. The text in question is essentially just a summary of points covered elsewhere in the article.
As for relegating all criticisms to one section, that could be seen as not giving them their due weight. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Moving all criticisms to one section is inappropriate. See WP:STRUCTURE.
Complaints about bias should be based upon the sources and relevant policies/guidelines. Personal opinion should not be a driving factor in changing the pov of an article - such changes in pov are NPOV violations themselves. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at this sentence:

"Critics of the Bates method not only deny its efficacy, but go on to cite potential negative consequences for those who attempt to follow it, namely that they might overexpose their eyes to sunlight, put themselves and others at risk by not wearing their corrective lenses while driving, or neglect conventional eye care, possibly allowing serious conditions to develop."

The statement implies that all of Bates' critics discredit him equally, imbues criticism with an incredulous tone with the "not only" and "but go on to" rhetoric. then discredits Bates' patients by having them "attempt"—rather than follow—his methodology. This is the tone that I'm seeing a lot of in this article. I would rewrite the above sentence this way to make it more NPOV:

"Critics of the Bates method have denied its efficacy and cited potential negative consequences for those following it, namely that they might overexpose their eyes to sunlight, put themselves and others at risk by not wearing corrective lenses while driving, or neglect conventional eye care, possibly allowing serious conditions to develop."

Here the past participle de-universalizes the viewpoints of Bates' critics and weighted POV words are gone. One could, of course, add further counter-arguments to these counter-arguments (all sourced), but that would make for a lousy article indeed. Morganfitzp (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree

In the "Results and criticism" section it states that , ". . . techniques are mainly from anecdotal evidence and their effectiveness in improving eyesight has not been substantiated by medical research," and is referenced by number [3]. But if you read the link to reference to [3], "Natural Vision Correction: Does It Work?", that statement does not appear in the article. The article is also just a short essay and not a study, and probably does not qualify as a bone fide reference. There is no reason to state in this page, or any Wikipedia page that something has not been substantiated by medical research, or that it is scientifically unproven. All these phrases mean is that science, or more correctly scientists, have not studied the issue in question. The only relevant thing to say would be to state that something is either scientifically proven or scientificly disproven, if such is the case. To say that something is scientifically unproven is to attempt to indirectly criticize it as scientifically disproven without the evidence back it up.

bruvensky (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

" There is no reason to state" See WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You have not responded directly to anything that I have said, so I cannot be sure what you mean. There is no conversation. I can assume that by referring me to a page about fringe science that you consider the Bates method fringe and unworthy. I read the page about fringe theories, and I do not consider the Bates Method to be fringe. It has not been studied by scientists enough to make any determination. I base this on my extensive experience with the Bates Method. The Bates Method is scientific, but begins with a view different from the prevalent one. I suggest that you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, and maybe even try the Bates Method.bruvensky (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This method meets WP:FRINGE and is not considered part of mainstream medical science - see for example the WebMD page on it here: http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/features/natural-vision-correction-does-it-work Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You also are not responding directly to what I say, but just referring me to other wiki pages. The Bates Method is an alternative theoretical formulation, and meets that criteria as explained on the fringe science page. Bates was a scientist of his day and advocated a theory that had a history. The rest of the scientific community has continued on its way, but that has no bearing on Bates. The word fringe is often used in the perjorative. If something is called fringe, then it means that it is unscientific, and if it is labeled unscientific, then it is considered invalid and unworthy. The fringe page states that if a fringe theory should succeed in explaining some aspect of reality, then it will usually be rapidly accepted. But the writer used the word "usually" and history shows that is not usually the case. Scientific acceptance is a social phenomenon as much as it is a scientific one.bruvensky (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But Bruvensky, scientists (me included) have studied the visual system, normal and abnormal, extensively. They know lots about how it works and why it fails. None of this huge body of evidence chimes with Bates' rather vague pronouncements on a variety of topics and as it says in the article some of the basic tenets of his theory/therapy/model are just plain wrong. Not "an alternative formulation". Wrong. If he is so spectacularly wrong (and he is) about how something as "simple" as accommodation works, why on earth waste time testing the rest of the waffle he wrote? If scientists had to explicitly dismiss every platitude Bates and his followers wrote about "strain", or imagining "blackness" or expend energy on trying to work out what Bates might have meant when he said "swinging", before it was allowed to be critiqued on WP, then we could also write articles about how there actually is a teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars. Hence we have guidelines like WP:FRINGE which is basically the WP version of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Bates should have done his research better, should have been clearer in his writing, but he wasn't and his followers have so far simply added chaff to the debate rather than being more explicit than Bates and doing the research required to gain acceptance. Your claim that the work carried out by the "rest of the scientific community" (that has given us iPhones and insulin and transcranial magnetic stimulation) "has no bearing on Bates" is utterly laughable. As you say: "If something is called fringe, then it means that it is unscientific ... invalid ... unworthy". In that case Bates almost epitomizes what is meant by "fringe". Famousdog (c) 19:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Concerns of bias

This is the most biased, one-sided article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. There is a large body of people devoted to undermining Bates' work because prescribing and manufacturing eyeglasses is a very large, profitable industry that is threatened by his work. The people who wish to debunk him are strongly motivated by money, and will continue to publish "research" and edit this Wikipedia page to make sure only their view is presented. The people like myself who know that Bates was (essentially) right have no such motivation, no such organization, and we cannot compete with the profit-seeking minions who dominate the vision field.

I know that Bates was right because I was approaching legal blindness in my twenties, and Bates therapy saved me and restored my sight, as it has millions of others.

The "research" claiming he was wrong, in addition to being partially fraudulent and largely irreproducible, fails to take into account that Bates' own work was only the starting point -- the Gestalt therapists (like Fritz Perls) who continued his work showed that there's a very important psychological component to myopia (for example) as well. Due to this, people like myself cannot prove certain things in a lab run by people we distrust and despise -- because (in my case) the setting itself affects my eyesight.

I don't expect many people to believe all this, and I know changes I make to the Wikipedia page will be redacted by pseudo-scientists and the paid shills of the optometry industry. But even though I know I can't prevail here... this whole Wikipedia page is a shameful, one-sided piece of money-driven propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 68.160.20.125 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 October 2012

Wikipedia has criteria for determining and addressing bias - in this case WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. This is not a forum for individuals to promote their own viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

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
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)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bates_method/Archive_18"