Talk:Bates method/Archive 19

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)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698998002296 and similar studies directly contradict Pollocks claims.--2A00:1028:83D4:436:7062:BDE4:FF0:FEA9 (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

These findings are not new, so the age of the book does not excuse him: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00550.x/full --2A00:1028:83D4:436:7062:BDE4:FF0:FEA9 (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I wonder how many optometrists warn people about near work. I'm sure that most people would rather not become totally dependent on glasses, even if they don't mind wearing them. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2014 (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 article may not be sufficient either. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated vs. ineffective

For fringe topics (and for neutrality generally) we are required to reflect the mainstream scientific view. Since the consensus is this method doesn't work, the neutral way to describe it is "ineffective"; saying it is merely "unsubstantiated" holds the door open for substantiation - which ain't going to happen. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means that we avoid expressing any view except where necessary. WP:RS implies that where we do so, it is the mainstream scientific one. The "consensus" is mostly to ignore Bates altogether, but the available RS on the subject definitely cluster round unsubsantiatedness, if there is such a word. To object on grounds that it "holds the door open" is just POV-pushing. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been found to be worse than ineffective - actually dangerous (or "disasterous" as the BMJ put it). For fringe topics like this we are obliged by our policy to make this mainstream view clear (so yes, it is "necessary"). Calling the method mildly "unsubstantiated" is problematic as it's out of kilter with the good sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Effectiveness and safety are two separate issues. The Rawstron review, one of the top quality sources here, states that "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." So yes, that actually does hold the door open. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"WP:NPOV means that we avoid expressing any view" No, it does not.

We follow policy here, which strongly supports using the word "ineffective". --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In any case Rawstron et al. appears to be concerned with eye exercises in general, not the Bate's Method in particular. Have you got this source? it doesn't appear to be online. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't have it. This goes back to the larger issue of what the Bates method is and isn't. I talked to a widely respected behavioral optometrist, who spoke favorably of the Bates method, but I'm pretty sure he would disagree with some of Bates' ideas and perhaps exercises. The "Bates method" is broad enough that to label it "ineffective" pretty much says that the kind of improvement it aims for simply isn't possible. The Rawstron review leaves that question open. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

How do you know if you haven't read it? In any case just because something is unsubstantiated does not mean it is not ineffective; there are other sources to consider (some of which we can read) saying this stuff is implausible and is completely unevidenced. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

We can read the Rawstron review's conclusions, at least (see the link.) It labels use of exercises to treat myopia/visual acuity as "controversial", not supported by clinical evidence "as of yet". Again, the "Bates method" is broad, so to summarily dismiss it is pretty much to dismiss the possibility of such improvement.

This article probably could discuss the physiology a bit more, to show why professionals might consider this implausible. As of now, it only addresses Bates' original theory of accommodation. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

We cannot read the conclusions, but the abstract - and that doesn't make any mention of "Bates Method". I am concerned about the use of this source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I suggested an Alternative treatments for refractive errors article. Currently, this Bates method article has a "General research" section, because neither the Rawstron review nor the AAO review necessarily concern the Bates method specifically.

Getting back to the original issue, perhaps instead of labeling the Bates method as "ineffective", we could add something to the intro, and perhaps add more to the body, about why professionals would consider such improvement implausible. PSWG1920 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)