| Revision as of 06:33, 21 October 2020 editJmc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,449 edits →Refined argument against "ineffective"← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:48, 22 November 2024 edit undoJmc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,449 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2024: ce | ||
| (166 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ps}} | |||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
| {{ |
{{Article history|action1=PR | ||
| |action1date=19 Feb 2007 | |action1date=19 Feb 2007 | ||
| |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Scientific peer review/Bates method | |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Scientific peer review/Bates method | ||
| Line 36: | Line 35: | ||
| |currentstatus=GA | |currentstatus=GA | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1= | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Skepticism |
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Alternative medicine |
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ps}} | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | ||
| |archiveprefix=Talk:Bates method/Archive | |archiveprefix=Talk:Bates method/Archive | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| |box-advert=no | |box-advert=no | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Auto archiving notice|bot=ClueBot III|age=14|units=days}} | |||
| == |
== Bates Method Review == | ||
| I believe that the article is very neutral and informative. However, there is always room for more information! Especially the topics that are shorter and passive. | |||
| I just found a from the ] which addresses ], and mentions that it could result in perceived temporary improvement by making the pupil smaller. Perhaps this could be cited in the ] and/or ] sections? ] (]) 20:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| --] (]) 01:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Only a troll or fool could have read that article and got the take-away that the point worth mentioning is "that it could result in perceived temporary improvement". You need to be banned. ] (]) 21:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:One of the external links at the bottom needs to be updated. The Orfield article is now . ] (]) 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :: You are likely a sock-puppet of so we do not need to update anything. You are indef blocked here. ] (]) 21:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::We should not cite that. I think both troll and fool apply. -] ] 07:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It looks like Belteshazzar is still creating sock-puppets and although his tactic appears to now create throwaway accounts and not edit in months so it's not worth me filing an SPI. ] (]) 22:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The ] would seem to be a reliable source. Or is a "news release" uncitable? ] (]) 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Belteshazzar}}, Suggestion: Remove this article from your watchlist. Never look at it again. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm just trying to understand the objection here. The source appears credible. It explicitly connects this to the Bates method. What more is needed? ] (]) 02:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's a press release, so not MEDRS. And the link is not explicit. And you are cherry picking to push a POV. Again. ] (]) 04:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I would dispute your last two points, and ] doesn't appear to outright exclude press releases, but I suppose any further discussion would be a waste of time. Hopefully a better source will soon emerge. ] (]) 05:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Seems to have worked for me == | |||
| :Why is it so important that we precisely describe this one potential mechanism that might be contributing to the placebo effect here? That doesn't seem to be normal for articles about quack treatments. | |||
| ''(Title refactored, previously reading, "This is incredibly negative without any reason. I have improved my eyesight so much with the Bates method, I no longer use my glasses." --] (]) 16:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC))'' | |||
| Research this in more depth before being discouraged. ] (]) 14:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Didn't I pretty much just do that? But in response to your comment, any such mechanism is in fact crucial to understanding the topic. There are people who think they have gotten improvement from such methods, or that someone they know has. Absent a mainstream explanation for these apparent results, such people might (somewhat understandably) continue to pour time and perhaps money into this, trying to improve further. | |||
| ::Such an explanation (though probably not one of the more commonly applicable ones) which '''is''' in the is sourced entirely to works from 1943 and 1957. Considering everything else that is excluded due to ], this is quite odd. ] (]) 01:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Belteshazzar}}, no it's not. There's no evidence that this contributed in any way to the spread of this bollocks - in fact, its spread appears to have been entirely unrelated to any objective merit. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 08:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There's evidence that pseudomyopia and "flashes of clear vision" contributed, at least. Not that it could ever really be proven what caused the spread of something like this. People ridiculing it without taking the time to elucidate why it might seem to work was probably a factor also. ] (]) 09:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Belteshazzar}}, GRIFTERS GONNA GRIFT. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 22:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :That's fantastic. I myself no longer have to wear my specs while driving, but I didn't use the Bates method, just the results of old age. I'm rather pleased that[REDACTED] is based on what reliable sources say, rather than some rando on the internetz. -] ] 14:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2020 == | |||
| ::This study found it was effective in elderly people: ] (]) 03:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::], you're old? That's very disappointing. ] (]) 21:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::] In the Great Department Store of life, I'm in the elevator and the tinny little speaker is announcing, in that forced bright way, ''"Third floor, Senility, Dotage and Decomposition. Going Up"'' -]the ] 19:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::The citations in that paper are amazing. | |||
| :::My favorite part of that paper is where it explains ''"The eye is the sensory organ responsible for gathering visual stimuli to assist people in communicating with the world around them."'' and then cites that sentence to an electrical engineering textbook. | |||
| :::My second favorite part is the sentence ''"Eye exercises allow the eye muscles to move freely."'', which is cited to a paper about designing robots based on insect physiology. | |||
| :::Most relevant is probably the line that says ''"Bates therapy is useful to restore visual acuity."'' that is referenced to a about gene therapy that doesn't seem to even mention the Bates Method. | |||
| :::What a joke. ] (]) 04:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::... but you did have an amusing few minutes doing due diligence, and I enjoyed your observations. Thank you very much. -] ] 05:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My own favourite: "''The Bates method has never been shown to improve eyesight in a substantial or long-term way''" referenced to a paper on 'Effectiveness of slow back massage on quality of sleep among ICU patent’s '. -- ] (]) 09:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2024 == | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Bates method|answered=yes}} | {{edit semi-protected|Bates method|answered=yes}} | ||
| Change "effected" to "affected" ] (]) 22:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Suggest you remove the word ‘ineffective’ from the first sentence. It is effective I have personally witnessed it work on a seven year old child who was about to go into those so called ‘coke-bottle’ glasses. About a year later after practicing this method under the tutelage of her parents, she was not wearing any glasses and still does not to this day. She is 22 now. | |||
| Akhila Hughes ] (]) 06:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :No, <s>un</s>fortunately our sourcing rules, ] and ] will not allow us to, sorry. -] ] 07:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that "ineffective" should be removed, but that is not likely to happen unless a new source turns up. The cited source, Quackwatch, is apparently held in high esteem by the Misplaced Pages community, so it can't be contradicted unless a better source does so. A mainstream optometry journal would probably work, but the question is how to get such a source to present a fair treatment of the Bates method. ] (]) 18:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Belteshazzar}}, would you prefer "dangerous" or would "batshit insane" be best? ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 21:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::"dangerous" might actually be better than "ineffective", if such an adjective has to be included in the lead sentence. I object to "ineffective" partly because it will make some readers (such as Takhila in this thread) think that the article authors don't know what they're talking about. ] (]) 21:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Belteshazzar}}, what a bizarre statement. There is no credible evidence the Bates method works, so "ineffective" is accurate. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 21:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I realize now that is not citable here, but it still seems basically credible. I have no idea whether {{u|Takhila}} is describing a case of ] or something else. ] (]) 22:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|Belteshazzar}}, there is no credible evidence that the Bates method works. You need to remove this article from your watchlist. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 08:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::How about “ineffective and dangerous”? ] (]) 10:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't see a need for either in the first sentence. The rest of the intro pretty much explains it. Ironically, calling it "ineffective" may well increase the danger, because many people won't then take the article seriously. ] (]) 18:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], I am curious. Do you ignore "one-way" signs? -] ] 18:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC){{od}} | |||
| I however, support using, "'''inneffective, dangerous and batshit insane'''" then holdouts might possibly get the message. -] ] 18:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :When I made over-the-top edits like that, I got blocked for ], but if you actually agree with such a change, it might be OK to make it. ] (]) 19:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I’m not convinced that “batshit insane” is supported by reliable sources. However, it is clearly ineffective and dangerous, based on the body of the article. And there’s nothing in Misplaced Pages’s policies that says we have to humour people who think ineffective therapies are effective. ] (]) 20:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::If the Bates method is completely ineffective, then Aldous Huxley was clearly wrong (as is the user who started this thread) to claim that it improved his eyesight. Yet my earlier edit saying that Huxley was wrong was . ] (]) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::”...then Auldous Huxley was clearly wrong”: | |||
| ::::”Then suddenly he faltered—and the disturbing truth became obvious. He wasn't reading his address at all. He had learned it by heart. To refresh his memory, he brought the paper closer and closer to his eyes. When it was only an inch or so away, he still couldn't read it, and had to fish for a magnifying glass in his pocket to make the typing visible to him. It was an agonizing moment.” | |||
| ::::‘Nuff said. ] (]) 21:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's one man's account, about an event that apparently happened ten years after Huxley wrote ]. If this account is accurate, it only means Huxley's vision wasn't good at the time this happened. ] (]) 21:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, you brought up Huxley. Can you find any RS that says it’s effective, or that staring at the sun is safe? ] (]) 22:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I brought up Huxley because it is apparently considered "bizarre" for Misplaced Pages to state that he was wrong about the Bates method improving his eyesight, so it seems a bit inconsistent for Misplaced Pages to state that the Bates method is ineffective. In response to your question, I never argued that Misplaced Pages should say the Bates method is effective, just that it shouldn't say it's ineffective. ] (]) 23:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::See ]. ] (]) 09:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yes, I got blocked because of that. The inconsistency here is still interesting, though. ] (]) 09:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::No, it isn’t. ] (]) 12:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Can you see the difference between what I did, and what you did? -] ] 12:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I wasn't talking about anything you did. But I apologize for perpetuating this discussion, which has gotten pointless. I think my response to Takhila was good, but then I shouldn't have responded to Guy. I realize that nothing is going to change until a new source emerges. ] (]) 17:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Would it be possible to place a note at the top of this page explaining why the lead sentence says the Bates method is ineffective, and what it would take to change that? I assume that if a mainstream optometry journal were to publish an article stating that the Bates method might be effective in some cases, that would do it. ] (]) 21:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the ']' section of the article is sufficient explanation of why the lead sentence says the Bates method is ineffective. Mainstream optometry journals have had over a century to publish an article stating that the Bates method might be effective in some cases. | |||
| :And this thread has also surely reached a dead end. -- ] (]) 22:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Belteshazzar}}, why on earth would we want to encourage people to continue the insane crusade to change the lead? What it would take is for the human physiology to be different. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 08:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :The lead says the Bates method is ineffective because reliable sources say that it doesn’t work. ] (]) 09:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about this in-text? <nowiki><!-- The use of "ineffective" is sometimes challenged by readers who believe they have seen the Bates method work, or who regard the writings of Bates and his followers as evidence that it works. Misplaced Pages aims to follow reliable sources, which indicate that the Bates method does not work. --></nowiki> ] (]) 19:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::], ]. --] (]) 19:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Refined argument against "ineffective"=== | |||
| Vision is too complex for any such method to be summarily deemed "ineffective", unless such a statement is very specific about what is not possible physiologically. While Quackwatch is cited to support this pejorative, actual optometry sources take a somewhat more measured tone. Also note what says about perceptual learning. It mostly discounts a connection with the Bates method because "the Bates method emphasizes repeated relaxation of the eyes, rather than repeated practice on a demanding task". However, the author may have been unaware of some of Bates' recommendations, such as reading small print and imagining small letters. Yes, this is original thought, but I offer it only as an argument to remove "ineffective". Current sources limit what this article can say, but removing a pejorative is a different matter. ] (]) 23:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|Yes, this is original thought}} Thanks for that disclaimer. Please stop wasting our time. --] (]) 23:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::The point is that vision is too complex for any such method to be summarily deemed "ineffective". Which I'm not sure that any recent source other than Quackwatch really does, anyway. ] (]) 23:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::'Ineffective' a pejorative?! ] betrays his/her not-so-hidden agenda with this emotive characterisation of the term. I'm with ] in a plea to stop wasting our time. -- ] (]) 01:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In this case, it is a pejorative, because the opening sentence could just as easily omit it. ] (]) 16:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please leave this article alone. --] (]) 16:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Let's not miss the fact that there is a known mechanism by which such a method could actually work. The author does not entirely discount a connection between perceptual learning and the Bates method, just says that it doesn't seem likely based on his understanding of the Bates method. This might be awkward to report on in the article, but we can at least remove "ineffective" from the lead sentence. ] (]) 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: That paper is cited on the article already. It is not a pro-Bates method paper. The author says "''The Bates method includes palming, visualization, movement (or ‘shifting’) and sunning. None of these techniques appear to have any plausible rationale for treating myopia"''. You want ineffective removed from the lead sentence, that is bizarre. We have many reliable references indicating Bates method is ineffective. You have not provided any to the contrary. ] (]) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, it's cited regarding blur adaptation after glasses are removed. I didn't claim that paper was pro-Bates. Note, however, the tentative tone. "''None of these techniques appear to have any plausible rationale for treating myopia''" is a bit different from saying that it's definitely ineffective. Quackwatch may be the only recent source which does that; otherwise, why is an actual optometry source not cited for "ineffective"? ] (]) 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: We already have a quote in the lead which says "''Most of his claims and almost all of his theories have been considered false by practically all visual scientists''". Marg, Elwin (April 1952). "Flashes of clear vision and negative accommodation with reference to the Bates Method of visual training". ''American Journal of Optometry & Archives of American Academy of Optometry''. 29 (4): 167–84. There are recent papers that could be cited for example which says "''the efficacy of this method is questionable and his theory was contradicted by mainstream ophthalmology and optometry of his day and still is today''" and this paper says the Bates method has been scientifically refuted . The Bates method has been discredited for over sixty years. There are many optometry sources on the article already and some not cited like the two above that indicate the method is ineffective. I agree we could add more references to the article but we don't need to cite them all in the lead because many are already in the text of the article. Why are you still claiming the Bates method is not ineffective? Show me one peer-reviewed optometry journal that says otherwise. ] (]) 03:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Thanks for the links. Interestingly, the ] paper has been insofar as explaining another key reason why the Bates method might sometimes seem to work. What I really want is for this article to explain all such reasons. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be valid sources for most of them, even though they are clearly real phenomena. ] (]) 04:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: I think you are confused about anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence. The Bates method does work for some people, just like naturopathy, ], crystal healing, ], ] and other nonsense quackery sometimes works. The key thing point here is that anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. When you put all these quack things including Bates Method under scientific examination and introduce controls they don't work. That is what separates science from pseudoscience. The Bates Method is ineffective scientifically that has been demonstrated. Aldous Huxley and others thought the Bates Method improved their eyesight and maybe it did but there is no scientific evidence for this and all we have are anecdotes. Without scientific controls in place we do not know which other variables are at play. You seem to be ignoring the science and looking for anecdotes. For example you said in one of your edits if the Bates method is ineffective then why did it improve Aldous Huxley's eyesight. See what I wrote above. This has been explained to you. Per multiple Misplaced Pages policies we go by the mainstream scientific sources on this topic. ] (]) 04:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Even with scientific controls in place, we may not know all the variables, including factors that may be working against improvement. It still seems unnecessary to say "ineffective", especially in light of what is known about perceptual learning. If we're going to keep "ineffective", however, is there any objection to changing the source? Maybe to , which is at least an optometry journal. Although now that I look at the references there, it cites an earlier version of the Quackwatch article along with a 1956 book to source "despite considerable scientific refutation". ] (]) 15:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::And I don't think I ever said "why did it improve Aldous Huxley's eyesight". I said that if we state point-blank that the Bates method is ineffective, we are saying that Huxley was wrong about the Bates method improving his eyesight. ] (]) 04:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Not at all. Huxley's ''belief'' that it improved his eyesight cannot be used as evidence that it is not ineffective, just as ]'s belief that the earth is flat cannot be used as evidence that it is not spherical. -- ] (]) 06:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Heavy Bias Against Bates Method == | |||
| At the onset of this article and all throughout, there is a suggestive narrative that the Bates Method does not work at all, where as there are countless accounts of it's success, even within the documents cited as "evidence" of the opposite. | |||
| Likewise, there are claims herein that the relaxation of the eyes is not important for improved and lasting sight, which it is; whereas no real scientific evidence is noted, while PLENTY of opinionated articles and books against the topic of someone being able to cure their own eyes is prolific. | |||
| This type of scolarly bias is unethical and is 100% not in alignment with the original purpose of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| When someone is curious about the Bates Method, they come here to read about the BATES method, NOT your opinion and what you think about it. And calling it "ineffective," at the onset is an OPINION that has nothing to do with the Bates Method. | |||
| Whereas his actual techniques would be useful to disclose here, instead of these blatant lies. | |||
| I am able to discern this bias for myself, because I have used the metbod AND it does work to improve eyesight - not everyone is so observant. | |||
| Whereas it is clear that whoever keeps editing this with bias has not applied oneself with consistency and/or has his or her own agenda. | |||
| I wonder what other corruption POV are created by such authors of deception? ] (]) 14:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Also, of the techniques mentioned herein, only the most "unbelievable" ones are listed, whereas there are many more practical techniques that are required in order for results to be gained. | |||
| His books have a full list of those techniques. | |||
| Perhaps of the editor would have read HIS books, and not just every book criticising his scientific work, this article might be more than trash. | |||
| I bet the karma for this editor is atrocious; because lying to people and actively working to discredit the work of someone with whom there are MANY others continuing his work in private practices to this very day. | |||
| Of course, his method does nothing to fill the pockets of everyone that profits from the crutch of glasses. ] (]) 15:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| seeing DOT org has many case stories of success with the Bates Method, and many people making a living teaching it. ] (]) 15:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I've left you some suggestions on how to make your experiences here rewarding. I hope you'll take them to heart. --] (]) 15:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :It appears that something must change elsewhere before this article can be fixed. See my conversation with , and some old comments by ]. ] (]) 20:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC). | |||
| ::Nothing needs fixing as far as anyone can tell. --] (]) 20:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::<s>Not if "anyone" includes {{User|GnosticSavior}}, {{User|Takhila}}, {{User|Peaceful07}}, {{User|ReTracer}}, etc. ] (]) 21:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::::No. Consensus is not determined by appealing to ] or ] fallacies, but sound arguments based upon our policies. Creating lists of people on "sides" violates behavioral policies here: the need to work together cooperatively and not make this a battleground. --] (]) 22:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Belteshazzar needs to be topic banned on anything related to the Bates Method. I find this user disruptive as he/she has not made any productive edits to this encyclopedia and has ignored all policies and advice that has been given to them. The topic ban has been requested by several users in the past, including one admin (see the top of this talk-page). There are over 6 million articles on this encyclopedia. This user in question rarely edits anything else. The agenda is POV pushing and removing criticisms of the Bates Method. This has been going on for quite a few months on and off. I think we need to bring it to an end. ] (]) 23:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I posted a helpful response to GnosticSavior, and then I only made that list because of what Hipal said. It was rather insulting to say "Nothing needs fixing as far as '''anyone''' can tell" in view of GnosticSavior's post and my response. I'm not sure I have removed any criticisms of the Bates method, except for things that were redundant. ] (]) 23:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Both were BATTLEGROUND comments. That's why you should be banned from this and all related articles. If you haven't figured out how to behave by now, we shouldn't have to put up with the disruption. --] (]) 23:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::My response to GnosticSavior was only intended to be helpful. He clearly believes that the article needs to be fixed, and I agree in principle, but that would require new sources. ] (]) 23:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The foregoing is surely the comment of a classic POV pusher. "I want to change the article to my POV, but I can't find RSs that support my POV" - a dead giveaway that a POV is being pushed. Enough already, I say (again). -- ] (]) 00:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::In this case, I was only trying to explain the circumstances to GnosticSavior. ] (]) 00:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{partly done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> "Effected" WAS correct, compared to "affected" in this case. "A effected B" means that a caused b, while "A affected B" means that a had an influence on b. The intent here is the former. | |||
| ::::::As far as Psychologist Guy's claim that I have "not made any productive edits to this encyclopedia", I actually have made some clearly productive edits to this article and others. Here, I improved the intro and created the "Early history" section. I've also cut down on verbiage throughout the article. And I removed and then in a context where both were inaccurate. And I recently what appeared to be an actual pro-Bates pov at ]. ] (]) 16:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| That said, just saying "A caused B" is clearer and less prone to confusion, so I just did that. ] (]) 22:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Most of this is answered by WP:FRINGE, but this statement interests me : ''"Whereas his actual techniques would be useful to disclose here"'' | |||
| :Yes, they would. Not in absurd detail, but an overview should certainly be given. | |||
| :It seems to me that ] already does this. But if it's missing something, that would be a useful discussion to have here. ] (]) 01:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I'd prefer to see us stick with 'effected', which signifies a directly applied action, while 'caused' can imply an eventually achieved result. -- ] (]) 22:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe we could add a "Miscellaneous" subsection to the Treatments section. I know Bates recommended reading small print, which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the current article, and might relate to perceptual learning, a mechanism by which such a method might actually work to an extent. ] (]) 02:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:48, 22 November 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bates method article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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, 24Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | Bates method has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Bates Method Review
I believe that the article is very neutral and informative. However, there is always room for more information! Especially the topics that are shorter and passive. --157.252.162.94 (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- One of the external links at the bottom needs to be updated. The Orfield article is now here. LaLeLiLou (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- You are likely a sock-puppet of Belteshazzar so we do not need to update anything. You are indef blocked here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like Belteshazzar is still creating sock-puppets SixteenSquared and Small Jars Lack Gold although his tactic appears to now create throwaway accounts and not edit in months so it's not worth me filing an SPI. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- You are likely a sock-puppet of Belteshazzar so we do not need to update anything. You are indef blocked here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Seems to have worked for me
(Title refactored, previously reading, "This is incredibly negative without any reason. I have improved my eyesight so much with the Bates method, I no longer use my glasses." --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC))
Research this in more depth before being discouraged. 31.60.2.187 (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's fantastic. I myself no longer have to wear my specs while driving, but I didn't use the Bates method, just the results of old age. I'm rather pleased that[REDACTED] is based on what reliable sources say, rather than some rando on the internetz. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- This study found it was effective in elderly people: 200.37.56.107 (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Roxy the dog, you're old? That's very disappointing. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Drmies In the Great Department Store of life, I'm in the elevator and the tinny little speaker is announcing, in that forced bright way, "Third floor, Senility, Dotage and Decomposition. Going Up" -Roxy the dog 19:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- The citations in that paper are amazing.
- My favorite part of that paper is where it explains "The eye is the sensory organ responsible for gathering visual stimuli to assist people in communicating with the world around them." and then cites that sentence to an electrical engineering textbook.
- My second favorite part is the sentence "Eye exercises allow the eye muscles to move freely.", which is cited to a paper about designing robots based on insect physiology.
- Most relevant is probably the line that says "Bates therapy is useful to restore visual acuity." that is referenced to a paper about gene therapy that doesn't seem to even mention the Bates Method.
- What a joke. ApLundell (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- ... but you did have an amusing few minutes doing due diligence, and I enjoyed your observations. Thank you very much. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- My own favourite: "The Bates method has never been shown to improve eyesight in a substantial or long-term way" referenced to a paper on 'Effectiveness of slow back massage on quality of sleep among ICU patent’s '. -- Jmc (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- ... but you did have an amusing few minutes doing due diligence, and I enjoyed your observations. Thank you very much. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "effected" to "affected" Undiine55 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Partly done: "Effected" WAS correct, compared to "affected" in this case. "A effected B" means that a caused b, while "A affected B" means that a had an influence on b. The intent here is the former.
That said, just saying "A caused B" is clearer and less prone to confusion, so I just did that. PianoDan (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'd prefer to see us stick with 'effected', which signifies a directly applied action, while 'caused' can imply an eventually achieved result. -- Jmc (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)