http://tinyurl.com/2vso5q

[fixed long link causing scrolling - Admin]

No, it's some notation regarding reading-distance focusing range, not distance vision. I can see how it could be read that way, but Bates wasn't ever myopic - his problem was presbyopia, which he cured himself of after several months, after which he had excellent vision.

Dave

_________________
Webmaster of http://www.iblindness.org

"I conceive that the great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things." - Benjamin Franklin

What is the relevance of 18 inches then?  http://www.iblindness.org/books/bates/ch20.html

It does seem plausible that he might be talking about reading diamond type, but someone in the sci.med.vision thread linked above said that "accommodative range" removes all doubt about what Bates meant. 

I disagree. It just wouldn't add up with anything else ever written for Bates to mean what you're suggesting. His excellent vision is referenced elsewhere, and certainly is implied in the use of the retinoscope. What you're suggesting seems to be that Bates was hiding his own severe myopia throughout all his writings and yet blatantly referenced it in his book for no reason at all. That just doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?

I suspect the 18 inches thing has to do with using a starting point of 18 inches, just because that's about arm's length for most people, or reading distance, and moving it closer to determine the existence of presbyopia, which is the context he uses the measurements in, after all, both when talking about himself, then in Ch 3, and again in Ch 20, and several times in the Better Eyesight magazines, all in reference to presbyopia, never myopia. I really don't know what else to say.

I do think it could be put better, and that's probably why it isn't said that way anymore, if it was ever in common use. Or maybe it is still used, I just don't know.

There have been a lot of characters on sci.med.vision throughout the years, with widely varying  opinions.

Dave

_________________
Webmaster of http://www.iblindness.org

"I conceive that the great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things." - Benjamin Franklin

No, it does not make sense, and I figured there had to be some other explanation, and actually now I see two other possible explanations (reading diamond type or simply starting from an arm's length.)  I just hesitate to interpret away any apparent contradiction.  You may have noticed in that sci.med.vision thread where someone said that Bates is a religion.

As much as I hesitate to resurrect an old thread, I came across this today and wanted to address the issue of the Bates method being accused of being a "religion," because I remember one or two folks on sci.med.vision saying such a thing.

If it's a religion, then you pretty much have to say the same thing about the Alexander Technique, massage therapy, Rolfing, strength training, meditation, herbology, diet and exercise. People who have been involved in alternative therapies since the scientific revolution have been accused of being religious fanatics for not sharing conventional medicine's views, ie: if you don't agree with them, you aren't scientific and are therefore promoting a religion. This comes from people who are unable to understand more than one world view, or are just hiding low self esteem. People can be fanatics about anything, whether it's the Bates method or the virtues of glasses. I've seen both.

Dave

_________________
Webmaster of http://www.iblindness.org

"I conceive that the great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things." - Benjamin Franklin