Talk:Bates method: Difference between revisions

	; 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.

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:24, 11 March 2020

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 Wikipedia, 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.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 19, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
December 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 17, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 9, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
April 6, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism GA‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine GA‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bates method. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016205458/http://randi.org:80/jr/2006-11/111706rampa.html to http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-11/111706rampa.html#i3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time looking through http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php , but could not find the material. Their archive may be incomplete. It should be on http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php?start=2035 unless I'm making a mistake. No link from http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/46-swift-june-29-2007.html . --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bates method. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was on to something...

It might be possible the Bates method is a case of "right treatment, wrong diagnosis"

Recent studies have begun to show that the ongoing massive increase in cases of nearsightedness worldwide may be as simple as the massive increase in time spent indoors. https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

There are new treatments being developed for conditions such as corneal ectatic disorders that incorporate exposure to UV-A radiation. My own optometrist recommended I be treated with corneal collagen cross-linking for my keratoconus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corneal_ectatic_disorders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corneal_collagen_cross-linking

Just another reason to make kids play outside, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7665:1800:4936:C64B:A534:903A (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note under the heading of the Talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." -- Jmc (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bates' book

This article does not adequately nor accurately cover the important points and rationale in Bates' book. I'm not sure where the idea that his book is definite "pseudoscience" came from, but such a statement is not neutral and sides with publications against his book. His book itself provides arguments against all of what the other sources are saying, and many experiments and their findings that were conducted by the doctor.

Do understand that this subject contains inherent bias and conflict of interest between conventional opthamologists and his novel research. As of the current state of the article, it seems that it is composed of all sources except Bates' book. What is the reason for excluding his research or paraphrasing it inaccurately from the article that is ultimately about his research?

Keysandbridges (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bates' book is not useful for the purpose of constructing an encyclopedia. We are meant to be engaged in accurately summarizing accepted knowledge about this topic as published in high-quality reliable sources (preferably independent, secondary ones). Basically, his ideas are rejected and Wikipedia will report that. Alexbrn (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is titled "Bates method", while excluding a lot of the important details of Bates' research and experiments, instead presenting the topic through reviews? None of the secondary sources will ever accept his research (not ideas), and as far as concerns the article, those have nothing to do with "Bates method" itself, but rather should at most be put into a criticisms section. If this article should be on "accepted knowledge", then it might as well not exist or be renamed. His book is the most comprehensive source there is that explains the most about "Bates method".

Keysandbridges (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bates method is completely discredited Keysandbridges. Have you read Phillip Pollack's book? Chapter 3 can be found here, or you can read the entire book online. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have read it, along with several other sources, and Bates' book itself. They have very little scientific value, and a lot of retorts. Those are at best only criticisms of Bates method, and should be presented as such, rather than as concrete facts. There's nothing about what those authors have to say that makes them the definitive source of truth, nor do they make the items presented in Bates' book more right or wrong. So what is the reason for underincluding Bates' point of view in this article? The edits I have made either adds or revises content that cites his book, or rephrased biased sentences:

* Line 15: There is no justification for starting the article by saying that it is "ineffective". Sources against the methods will say that it is, Bates will say that it is not. In such a conflict this word is largely jugdmental and best omitted like past edits.

* Line 15: I did add the paragraph on Bates' own review of how others received his methods These were part of the last chapter of his book "reason and authority" and are as relevant to the reception of the method as what any other opthalmologist's has to say. Are we just going to include one way criticisms?

* Line 69: The sentence "He thought that the manner of eye movement affected the sight" is incomplete. He says that "perfect sight is impossible without continual shifting". The following sentence is also incomplete. He suggested shifting to "imitate consciously the unconscious shifting of normal vision and to realize the apparent motion produced by such shifting".

* Line 77: How do we reckon with this sentence "The techniques advocated by Bates are based on fallacious assumptions about the eye and have no effect on improving eyesight"? Throughout his book he explains how each technique is based on a discovery of the eye.

Are these aspects of Bates' work not relevant in an article about his work? Yes I understand that the external sources discredit his work

Keysandbridges (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bates was wrong per reliable sources and that's what we use. Our views on the matter are irrelevant. If you can get your view accepted in academia and published in a top-tier medical journal than we can think again. Until then the article remains NPOV per the sources we have. Alexbrn (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Ineffective"

WP:IMPARTIAL says "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." I even made an experimental modification to this, which was reverted. Calling the Bates method "ineffective" would thus seem to clearly go against policy. It could be called "fringe" or "unsubstantiated", or more words could be used. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 :::: [[User:Keysandbridges|Keysandbridges]] ([[User talk:Keysandbridges|talk]]) 00:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 :::::Bates was wrong per reliable sources and that's what we use. Our views on the matter are irrelevant. If you can get your view accepted in academia and published in a top-tier medical journal than we can think again. Until then the article remains NPOV per the sources we have. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 05:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
+== "Ineffective" ==
+[[WP:IMPARTIAL]] says "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." I even made an experimental modification to this, which was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=944977727&oldid=944915659 reverted]. Calling the Bates method "ineffective" would thus seem to clearly go against policy. It could be called "fringe" or "unsubstantiated", or more words could be used. [[User:Belteshazzar|Belteshazzar]] ([[User talk:Belteshazzar|talk]]) 04:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)