User talk:ReTracer

Welcome!

Hello, ReTracer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! PSWG1920 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bates method

Thanks for weighing in at Talk:Bates method. I appreciate your perspective. When I first started editing I was very much a believer (hence my username), but now I have doubts. Have you gotten any lasting and measurable improvement in your eyesight? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my response is a bit abrupt. I'm happy to explain in detail. However, I think all you're offering is a No true Scotsman argument. --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I only just found this page - thanks for the welcome and Ronz, I do appreciate your time and also understand the angle you are presenting so well. I perceive the juxtaposition of different viewpoints and am trying to present an angle that I sense is lacking. I hope I'm not coming across as 'it's only this, it's only this', because that to me is entirely unhelpful, but as I'm addressing what I perceive to be a leaning in the other direction, my weight on the necessary changes (as I perceive), may be somewhat greater than what I envisage the outcome should be.ReTracer (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're doing fine. You're discussing the most complex policy of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV. It's hard to understand, it's extremely hard to enforce.

The problem we've had in addressing the viewpoints of Bates method practitioners is that no one writes about them anymore. We simply haven't found any independent sources. Without independent sources, we can't say much about them without violating WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the problem. I mentioned a while back in the discussion pages that I'd recently visited an optician who readily stated he knew of five independent cases where prescriptions had been reduced after the people concerned had undergone a period of practising the Method. The reason I was meeting with him is because we are trying to co-ordinate an article with a national newspaper that wants to cover the method - and naturally they are looking for points of view from as many sides as possible.

The optician examined a student of the method and was able to confirm that the method had benefitted her sight, but when it came to putting comments in print he was suddenly very wary of exactly how much he was willing to say. It is easy to see why: the idea of the possibility of vision improvement is regarded on the whole as completely out of the question, so that to 'stick one's neck out' becomes a very fraught and very real risk - with a high probability of damage to his reputation and possibly losing all his customers. I think it is the case in general throughout the last 50 years: the method plugs away against a strong tide of scorn and to find an 'independent' point of view that studies the method without the assumptions that are peppered through the current article will require a brave individual. I don't think such a person exists - or if they do, they are rapidly seen as no longer being independent.

I'm also good friends with one of the top ophthalmologists in this country (UK) and she also says she can see the logic and sense behind what Bates was trying to achieve (aside from the more extreme claims!), but while she said to me 'I see how it could work', she is completely unwilling to say this from a professional stance.--ReTracer (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once the article gets written and published, let us know and it can hopefully be used in the article here. Actually I'd probably find it myself, since I do regular searches for anything related to the Bates method. I think right now we're doing pretty much the best we can in covering the subject from an encyclopedic standpoint. As far as the "No True Scotsman fallacy", I personally don't think it applies to any self-help method. By the way, you never answered my question above about your own results. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry I didn't see your question before. I experienced some very good results; while not yet recovering my sight to 'perfect' I became able to see well enough to live entirely without glasses. This is from a history of wearing glasses for 18 years from the age of 7. I've noted that the results from the method are easier to accomplish where the vision has not had long periods of the wearing of lenses or glasses: that is, the student of Bates techniques has a much more malleable eyesight condition when they have not spent a long period beforehand with poor sight. Long standing conditions require a good deal of support and dedication to make inroads. My own experience is that full commitment is met with great benefits.

The article is still very misleading and it's a shame. Quoting misinformed people does not produce an article that maintains a neutral point of view. It just becomes a treatise based on inaccuracy.--ReTracer (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a "Neutral Point of View" according to Wikipedia is not always what intuition would tell you it is. See WP:Undue weight. Also, per WP:V and WP:OR sources are an issue. However, here's an idea. Try starting a Bates method article for Citizendium, which apparently does not yet have one. I was just reading a discussion about how Citizendium is a better place for editors who hold unconventional views. Their Homeopathy article would seem to be the model here.

In regards to your own results, how variable is your vision now? At one time I was thoroughly convinced by success stories like yours, but now I wonder if some people have just become very good at manipulating their eyes (see Bates_method#.22Flashes_of_clear_vision.22.) PSWG1920 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ReTracer, I found your comments while digging through the Talk:Bates method archives. Anything new? Was such an article ever published? I found this person via similar digging. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]