Talk:Bates method

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

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 Takhila (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No, unfortunately our sourcing rules, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS will not allow us to, sorry. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 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 Wikipedia 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. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, would you prefer "dangerous" or would "batshit insane" be best? Guy (help! - typo?) 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. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, what a bizarre statement. There is no credible evidence the Bates method works, so "ineffective" is accurate. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I realize now that this letter is not citable here, but it still seems basically credible. I have no idea whether Takhila is describing a case of pseudomyopia or something else. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, there is no credible evidence that the Bates method works. You need to remove this article from your watchlist. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

How about “ineffective and dangerous”? Brunton (talk) 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. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Belteshazzar, I am curious. Do you ignore "one-way" signs? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I however, support using, "inneffective, dangerous and batshit insane" then holdouts might possibly get the message. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

When I made over-the-top edits like that, I got blocked for WP:POINT, but if you actually agree with such a change, it might be OK to make it. Belteshazzar (talk) 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 Wikipedia’s policies that says we have to humour people who think ineffective therapies are effective. Brunton (talk) 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 deemed "bizarre". Belteshazzar (talk) 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. Brunton (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's one man's account, about an event that apparently happened ten years after Huxley wrote The Art of Seeing. If this account is accurate, it only means Huxley's vision wasn't good at the time this happened. Belteshazzar (talk) 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? Brunton (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I brought up Huxley because it is apparently considered "bizarre" for Wikipedia to state that he was wrong about the Bates method improving his eyesight, so it seems a bit inconsistent for Wikipedia to state that the Bates method is ineffective. In response to your question, I never argued that Wikipedia should say the Bates method is effective, just that it shouldn't say it's ineffective. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. Brunton (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I got blocked because of that. The inconsistency here is still interesting, though. Belteshazzar (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn’t. Brunton (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you see the difference between what I did, and what you did? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 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. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

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. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the 'Dead-end' 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. -- Jmc (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

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. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead says the Bates method is ineffective because reliable sources say that it doesn’t work. Brunton (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

How about this in-text? <!-- 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. Wikipedia aims to follow reliable sources, which indicate that the Bates method does not work. --> Belteshazzar (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:BAIT, WP:DTS. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 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 this one 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. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is original thought Thanks for that disclaimer. Please stop wasting our time. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 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. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

'Ineffective' a pejorative?! Belteshazzar betrays his/her not-so-hidden agenda with this emotive characterisation of the term. I'm with Hipal/Ronz in a plea to stop wasting our time. -- Jmc (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

In this case, it is a pejorative, because the opening sentence could just as easily omit it. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please leave this article alone. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 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. [1] This might be awkward to report on in the article, but we can at least remove "ineffective" from the lead sentence. Belteshazzar (talk) 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. Psychologist Guy (talk) 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"? Belteshazzar (talk) 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 this one which says "the efficacy of this [Bates] 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 [2]. 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. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Interestingly, the Elwin Marg paper has been deemed unacceptable 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. Belteshazzar (talk) 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, urine therapy, crystal healing, ear candling, magnet therapy 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 Wikipedia policies we go by the mainstream scientific sources on this topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 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 this one, 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". Belteshazzar (talk) 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. Belteshazzar (talk) 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 Samuel Shenton's belief that the earth is flat cannot be used as evidence that it is not spherical. -- Jmc (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I now feel compelled to point out something that I fully noticed only when I was forced to defend myself. From June 2019 to February 2020, four established users removed "ineffective": [3] "Ludicrously pov" [4] "definitive wording for a yet undecided matter... the article has enough information regarding its legitimacy; the reader can decide for himself." [5] "SKEPTIC, BIAS, POV, COI vio" [6] "Removed the word "ineffective" from the opening sentence as subjective and negatively biased." So "ineffective" does not have nearly as strong a consensus as it might seem. People simply gave up. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time. --Hipal (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow this again. Two ANI cases have been opened up against Belteshazzar but there was no admin input and they were quietly archived. He's still at it moaning about the ineffective in the lead. An admin just needs to ban this user. We do not need to assume good faith any longer. Belteshazzar is a blatant troll. There are three entire archives of his soapboxing here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:AE is where to take this next. --Hipal (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Very hard to know what Belteshazzar's on about. He/she didn't disagree with my strengthening of "ineffective" by adding "and potentially dangerous" - indeed, appeared to concur with it. -- Jmc (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"potentially dangerous" is accurate, though I wasn't sure it was necessary to say in the first sentence. I do not believe "ineffective" is entirely accurate, despite haphazard statements by certain sources. For such a method to be tested fairly, every factor that might work against improvement would have to be eliminated, and the criteria for success would have to correctly balance genuine improvement against illusory improvement. As mentioned above, there is at least one known mechanism by which some aspects of the Bates method might result in real, lasting improvement, although the refractive power of the eye would likely not change. Controlled studies might thus have discounted what should have been positive results. Furthermore, it seems likely that subjects sometimes wore glasses during the treatment period, although Bates said never to wear glasses. So you can see how controlled studies may have gone wrong. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You're wasting everyone's time here, including your own, unless you're trying to get yourself banned or blocked. --Hipal (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

When you say "one known mechanism", you're speaking of "blur adaptation" right?

It would not be appropriate to describe "blur adaptation" as a result of the Bates method. It's simply what happens when you don't wear glasses. People spent thousands of years not wearing glasses before Bates was born. The topic of this article is all the additional cruft he invented. You cannot claim "don't wear glasses" on Bates's behalf as a novel invention.

ApLundell (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This so-called 'Refined argument against "ineffective"' is completely beside the point. The Bates method is appropriately characterised as "ineffective" simply because, as the third paragraph of the lede states, "No type of training has been shown to change the refractive power of the eye", IOW the Bates method has not the slightest effect on the physiology of the eye - which is what it purports to do. It thus totally fails the effectiveness test in the very basis of its method. Case closed. -- Jmc (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, "blur adaptation" is the human body naturally adapting to a disability. It is not a treatment of that disability, and it is not the result of anything Bates invented.

Citing "blur adaptation" as evidence of a "effective" treatment is like saying you cured a broken hand because the patient learned to type one-handed. ApLundell (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the mechanism in question is perceptual learning, which is compared and contrasted with blur adaptation here. Also mentioned here and in papers it cites. It sounds as though this is real, lasting improvement, although it probably would not change the refractive power of the eye. The only question is whether any part of the Bates method might aid perceptual learning. Thus far, no source says that it does or even that this is likely, but it could be argued that the mere existence of such a mechanism should preclude any such method from being summarily labeled as "ineffective" or "discredited", unless such a statement is very specific about what is not possible physiologically. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I repeat: this is totally beside the point. The Bates method can indeed be summarily labeled as "ineffective" simply because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the effectiveness of its fundamental physiological mechanism. Therefore, all other claims about it must necessarily be attributed to mere coincidence. And I repeat: case closed. -- Jmc (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the definition of "fundamental physiological mechanism" and "mere coincidence". At the most basic level, the Bates method is claimed to improve eyesight. If parts of the Bates method were shown to be effective in improving eyesight via perceptual learning, "ineffective" would certainly have to be removed from the first sentence. As of now, the question is whether the mere existence of this mechanism should preclude a summary label of "ineffective" or "discredited". Belteshazzar (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"As of now, the question is whether the mere existence of this mechanism should preclude a summary label of "ineffective""

No. Of course it should not preclude that.

If I chopped off your leg, you would eventually learn to get around with one leg. The fact that you were able to slightly adapt doesn't mean that all woo-woo leg-regrowing treatments can no longer be called "ineffective".

Regardless of whether that satisfies you, I think it's safe to say that your "refined argument" is in no danger of changing the existing consensus about this article's lede. ApLundell (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Have you read what the articles linked above (and articles they cite) say about perceptual learning? Belteshazzar (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I read one of the articles you linked, when I got to the end and still couldn't understand how it supported your argument, I decided my time was better spent on other things. ApLundell (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I should have led with this one instead. It doesn't mention Bates, but it does show how such a method might genuinely work to some extent. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar: "It depends on the definition of 'fundamental physiological mechanism'" - fundamental physiological mechanism = changing the refractive power of the eye.

Belteshazzar's continuing refusal to accept the ineffectiveness of this essential basis of the Bates method looks increasingly perverse. -- Jmc (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

My point was that vision is more complicated than that. Also read the Treatment section of the Presbyopia article. Eyesight is more than just refractive power. It would appear that brain retraining can improve the actual image seen, not merely help someone to better interpret it. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems like this conversation has now looped back around on itself at least once. If it didn't change consensus the first time through, it's not likely to the second time. ApLundell (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure that people understood that perceptual learning actually can improve the image seen, to a greater extent than simple blur adaptation can. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear. The Bates method is correctly characterised as ineffective because it doesn't even make first base i.e. it fails in its foundational function viz. changing the refractive power of the eye. All this talk of 'perceptual learning' and 'blur adaptation' is in second base/third base (fourth ... base?) territory and so, totally nugatory in the context of this article. When Belteshazzar authors his/her article on the Belteshazzar method, he/she can rabbit on about all these secondary factors as much as he/she has obsessively rabbited on about them here -- Jmc (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Then how about we change "eyesight" to "refractive power of the eye" in the opening sentence? Belteshazzar (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No!! The Bates method is aimed at improving eyesight, by changing the refractive power of the eye, just as homeopathy is aimed at curing disease, by removing the deeper disturbance of the vital force. -- Jmc (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Then put that wording in the opening sentence. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that (or some variation of it). Let's see what others think. -- Jmc (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No. The lede sentence should just say that it intends to improve eyesight. Saying some such about "refractive power of the eye" lends it legitimacy and makes it sound like a scientifically reached method. The technical language is unneeded, everyone will understand "improve eyesight", I don't think that many will know what the "refractive power of the eye" is, or if it's a good thing to increase or decrease it. Leijurv (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Jmc seems to believe that refractive power is fundamental to the Bates method, to the point where the Bates method can be summarily labeled "ineffective" even when there is an alternative mechanism by which some parts of the Bates method might plausibly bring about lasting improvement in eyesight. Belteshazzar (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I am responding via a notification at WP:FTN. The first sentence of this article currently states: "The Bates method is an ineffective and potentially dangerous alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight." The word "eyesight" links to visual acuity. Although the "dangerous" terminology could be backed-up with an additional reliable source (e.g. [7]), this is accurate and backed-up by a reliable source. In this context, it is clear to me that "eyesight" refers to "visual acuity". Just like lay people frequently use "lazy eye" to mean either strabismus or amblyopia, lay people also sometimes use "vision" to mean visual perception or visual acuity. An argument could be that people may alternate in the usage of "eyesight", too; however, Bates appeared to reference measured improvements in acuity when discussing "sight" or "eyesight". - Location (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. In this context, eyesight does refer to visual acuity, not to refractive power. That is why "ineffective" should be removed. As I've pointed out, there is a known mechanism by which visual acuity (but probably not refractive power) can sometimes be improved via training. This is currently discussed in the Treatment section of the Presbyopia article. Whether any part of the Bates method can affect this is another question, but the mere existence of this mechanism should preclude a summary label of "ineffective". Belteshazzar (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be working with the assumption that perceptual training with frequency-doubling or Gabor targets in presbyopes is equal to the Bates method training in myopes and hyperopes. That is incorrect. You are welcome to make that leap of belief outside of Wikiepdia, but to insert it into the article would fail WP:OR. - Location (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting inserting anything into the article on this basis, only removing something. I realize that any affirmative statement would require a valid source which directly connected it to the subject. Regarding myopia, a Google scholar search appears to show that perceptual learning is believed to help myopia also. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I have evaluated what you have said and my !vote is with those who agree with keeping "ineffective". - Location (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Risks of sunning and palming

The recently updated AllAboutVision article now mentions a risk of sunning even on closed eyelids, and also a possible risk of palming. An old version of that article is cited here. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In the light of this (and other references in the article to risks), I propose amending "ineffective" in the lede to "ineffective and potentially dangerous". -- Jmc (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't argue with "potentially dangerous". The only question is whether it is necessary to state that in the first sentence when the intro already mentions possible risks. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Nemine contradicente, I'll make my proposed change. While it's true that possible risks are mentioned later in the lede, the addition of "potentially dangerous" serves to signal a significant issue right up front. -- Jmc (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The article should probably also mention the specific risks discussed in the AllAboutVision article. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Possibly in a separate section under General criticisms headed 'Risks'? Certainly the increased risk from palming of glaucoma is mentioned nowhere else and is concerning. -- Jmc (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that the point about palming and glaucoma could be in the Palming section, and the point about sunning on closed eyelids could be in the Sunning section. Belteshazzar (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Aldous Huxley

Here's a fairly new source regarding Aldous Huxley and the Bates method: [8] Anything worth noting here or in related articles? Belteshazzar (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, should Huxley be mentioned in the intro? He was previously, and this was removed in a larger deletion. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)