01-23-2007, 03:49 AM
Me (12:20:45 AM):
I didn't say Bates said it was okay to stare a hour at the sun. Where did you get that idea?
My cousin (12:20:53 AM): The Scientific Method will find experiments that are fool proof and deals with them, thats the whole point.
My cousin (12:21:04 AM): Im not saying you did, but why would you listen to someone who said that? lol
Me (12:21:28 AM):
What if I were to tell you that darkness is more dangerous to the eyes than sunlight?
My cousin (12:21:40 AM): This reminds me of the marketing scheme. Except i think that some eye exercises could be beneficial. But id be extremely careful about sunning.
My cousin (12:21:57 AM): I know that you go blind if your left in the dark for a long time.
My cousin (12:22:09 AM): If you really want to learn about the eye you should become an optomitrist.
Me (12:22:35 AM):
You are showing the same kind of skepticism that many optometrists may show, so do you understand now why Bates Method isn't accepted? I have seen results myself, so I cannot dismiss the results, although optometrists might and they might be unable to explain it themselves.
My cousin (12:22:46 AM): Staring at the Sun will make you go blind a lot faster than being in the dark.
My cousin (12:23:04 AM): All Scientists are skeptical until evidence is provided proving something.
My cousin (12:23:07 AM): Thats the whole point.
My cousin (12:23:19 AM): Every paper is reviewed critically.
Me (12:23:25 AM):
You don't have to look at the sun at all. You are twisting things around.
My cousin (12:23:59 AM): No i'm not twisting things around, i am talking about your statement that darkness is more dangerous to the eyes than sunlight.
Me (12:23:56 AM):
But eyes depend on light, and some sunlight is necessary for the eyes to be healthy.
My cousin (12:24:06 AM): Now if you meant everyday daylight fine.
My cousin (12:24:09 AM): But if you stare at hte sun no.
My cousin (12:25:12 AM): Just because Optomitrist reject Bates theory doesnt mean they are closed minded. It may mean that there is no evidence to support Bates' conclusions.
My cousin (12:25:42 AM): If you were to prove the Bates Method works you would very likely win the Nobel Prize.
My cousin (12:25:56 AM): And be given millions of dollars in research grants and other prizes.
My cousin (12:27:41 AM): Why haven't scientist accepted it, they have no agenda.
My cousin (12:28:39 AM): Without evidence the whole thing seems like a quack.
Me (12:29:39 AM):
"The fact is that, except in rare cases, man is not a reasoning being. He is dominated by authority, and when the facts are not in accord with the view imposed by authority, so much the worse for the facts. They may and indeed must win in the long run; but int he meantime the world gropes needlessly in darkness and endures much suffering that might have been avoided."
My cousin (12:30:03 AM): Which is why we have the Scientific Method
My cousin (12:30:09 AM): It is a method NOT an institution.
My cousin (12:30:41 AM): If one contridictory piece of evidence is presented a scientist must change his postition or he will lose credibility and be shunned by the scientific community.
My cousin (12:31:11 AM): Thanks to this method we have purified water, electricity, airplanes, space shuttles, modern medicine, and the carrying capacity of the earth has been greatly increased.
Me (12:31:13 AM):
That was Bates own words... about the scientific men who wouldn't believe the evidence even though they saw it with their own eyes. Maybe a few of them did, but in the end it all came down to the money.
My cousin (12:31:27 AM): Or
My cousin (12:31:30 AM): maybe Bates was wrong
Me (12:31:29 AM):
You are too faithful in others to do what is right.
My cousin (12:31:40 AM): no u are
My cousin (12:31:49 AM): You are faithful that Bates was correct.
My cousin (12:31:57 AM): Even though the Scientific Community has not accepted his work
Me (12:32:02 AM):
Look, I have read both the works of optometrists, as well as Bates own works. Have you read both?
My cousin (12:32:11 AM): Why to this day is it still not accepted?
My cousin (12:32:30 AM): I have read neither, and I am not an optometrists. I know little about the human eye.
My cousin (12:32:42 AM): I have great respect for those who dedicated 10 years of their life to do so.
Me (12:32:36 AM):
Before you declare Bates quackery, I suggest you take his own word rather than mine. Do some researching, read more about it directly from Bates own words.
My cousin (12:32:54 AM): My only question is
My cousin (12:33:09 AM): How come the Scientific Community , to this day, does not recognize Bates method. IE : where is the proof?
My cousin (12:33:56 AM): If I take Bates word before I decide whether his word is credible, then i am begging the question, which is a logical fallicy.
My cousin (12:34:11 AM): I am trying to examine it, but I am not an expert on the human eye.
My cousin (12:34:32 AM): I put my trust in those who have been to medical school and contemporary scientist who help correct peoples vision.
My cousin (12:34:45 AM): Call me too faithful but i trust them more than Bates who wrote a book in 1920.
My cousin (12:35:07 AM): If I were proved wrong one day, and it turns out that Bates is correct I will change my view.
My cousin (12:35:37 AM): But without evidence I am going to have to side with the optomitrist i'm afraid. Its nothing personal its just I can't accept it without evidence. And I am NOT qualified to judge the evidence.
Me (12:38:58 AM):
The proof is in this 700-page book which has much of Bates own research and work in it: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Better-Eyesight-Complete-Magazines-William/dp/1556433514/sr=1-1/qid=1169541255/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5384755-7731936?ie=UTF8&s=books ">http://www.amazon.com/Better-Eyesight-C ... ooks </a><!-- m --> and Bates own published book which you can readily check out and see all the graphic pictures you want (even though Bates wrongly advocated looking directly at the sun during daytime): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.iblindness.org/books/bates/">http://www.iblindness.org/books/bates/</a><!-- m --> . If you are talking about contemporary evidence, there are NVI (Natural Vision Improvement) centers set up in parts of the U.S. and across the world which are practicing Bates Method and improving their eyesight, until society is ready to accept that declining eyesight can be reversed. Too many people are too skeptical and when one of them finds it successful, the others have a enough time believing it.
My cousin (12:39:26 AM): Are NVI backed by the Scientific Community?
My cousin (12:39:52 AM): Also I am not qualified to examine evidence concerning the human eye. I am going to trust people who dedicated their life to studying the human eye to do that.
My cousin (12:39:59 AM): Also you are begging the question.
My cousin (12:40:09 AM): You can't prove a text is correct by citing that text.
My cousin (12:40:16 AM): IE : The book is true because the book says so.
Me (12:40:11 AM):
The Scientific Community isn't God. They have changed their beliefs many times over the years once they find out they've been wrong about something all along.
My cousin (12:40:35 AM): Of course they change their beliefs, that is the entire POINT.
Me (12:40:39 AM):
Now you're saying the Scientific Community's own facts are always straight, and it's static and non-dynamic? Think again.
My cousin (12:40:48 AM): If one piece of evidence contridicts a theory it is discarded or changed.
My cousin (12:41:02 AM): No i NEVER said they are always straight.
My cousin (12:41:12 AM): They are ALWAYS changing as new evidence is found.
My cousin (12:41:21 AM): Repeatable Double Blind experiments.
My cousin (12:42:19 AM): You are the one who needs to seriously read about the Scientific Method, and the defination of Theory versus Hypothesis. You should also read about how Scientific Publications are done, and how Science progresses.
My cousin (12:42:55 AM): Its 2:42 am I need to go to bed. But if you like I would love to continue this conversation another time.
My cousin (12:43:16 AM): Good night , hope to talk to you again soon.
My cousin signed off at 12:43:27 AM.
My cousin is offline and will receive your IMs when signing back in.
Me (12:44:35 AM):
Bates studied the eye anatomy and knew it better than all his contemporaries.. heck, he taught them at one of the best universities in the country; and he was very highly established in the optometry field. He was an optometrist himself at one time and followed the orthodox method, he prescribed glasses for people. He found out that eyesight could be reversed, and dedicated his life to this cause. He examined Helmholtz's Theory of Accommodation from stratch which NO ONE else had ever done, for 80 years from 1850 to 1920, and haven't since then until the 1990s. Bates waited 35 years after he started out as an optometrist and several years of learning more about this before publishing his findings in a book.
(end of conversation)
When he left, I realized I hadn't been clear about everything. Just before leaving, he went on to describe the "scientific hierarchy of facts", which is a common trap in Western civilization when one accepts too readily that everything modern is better and fixes any previous errors. This is the same cultural revelance Dave was referring to in another thread and why it's important to understand how culture can have a profound influence on people and why it's important to have different communication approaches when explaining Bates to people who have deeply rooted beliefs. Otherwise they shut down and automatically refuse to listen. Unless, given the circumstances, there's something I'm not aware about that he's correct about. And any help in understanding this is appreciated.
I didn't say Bates said it was okay to stare a hour at the sun. Where did you get that idea?
My cousin (12:20:53 AM): The Scientific Method will find experiments that are fool proof and deals with them, thats the whole point.
My cousin (12:21:04 AM): Im not saying you did, but why would you listen to someone who said that? lol
Me (12:21:28 AM):
What if I were to tell you that darkness is more dangerous to the eyes than sunlight?
My cousin (12:21:40 AM): This reminds me of the marketing scheme. Except i think that some eye exercises could be beneficial. But id be extremely careful about sunning.
My cousin (12:21:57 AM): I know that you go blind if your left in the dark for a long time.
My cousin (12:22:09 AM): If you really want to learn about the eye you should become an optomitrist.
Me (12:22:35 AM):
You are showing the same kind of skepticism that many optometrists may show, so do you understand now why Bates Method isn't accepted? I have seen results myself, so I cannot dismiss the results, although optometrists might and they might be unable to explain it themselves.
My cousin (12:22:46 AM): Staring at the Sun will make you go blind a lot faster than being in the dark.
My cousin (12:23:04 AM): All Scientists are skeptical until evidence is provided proving something.
My cousin (12:23:07 AM): Thats the whole point.
My cousin (12:23:19 AM): Every paper is reviewed critically.
Me (12:23:25 AM):
You don't have to look at the sun at all. You are twisting things around.
My cousin (12:23:59 AM): No i'm not twisting things around, i am talking about your statement that darkness is more dangerous to the eyes than sunlight.
Me (12:23:56 AM):
But eyes depend on light, and some sunlight is necessary for the eyes to be healthy.
My cousin (12:24:06 AM): Now if you meant everyday daylight fine.
My cousin (12:24:09 AM): But if you stare at hte sun no.
My cousin (12:25:12 AM): Just because Optomitrist reject Bates theory doesnt mean they are closed minded. It may mean that there is no evidence to support Bates' conclusions.
My cousin (12:25:42 AM): If you were to prove the Bates Method works you would very likely win the Nobel Prize.
My cousin (12:25:56 AM): And be given millions of dollars in research grants and other prizes.
My cousin (12:27:41 AM): Why haven't scientist accepted it, they have no agenda.
My cousin (12:28:39 AM): Without evidence the whole thing seems like a quack.
Me (12:29:39 AM):
"The fact is that, except in rare cases, man is not a reasoning being. He is dominated by authority, and when the facts are not in accord with the view imposed by authority, so much the worse for the facts. They may and indeed must win in the long run; but int he meantime the world gropes needlessly in darkness and endures much suffering that might have been avoided."
My cousin (12:30:03 AM): Which is why we have the Scientific Method
My cousin (12:30:09 AM): It is a method NOT an institution.
My cousin (12:30:41 AM): If one contridictory piece of evidence is presented a scientist must change his postition or he will lose credibility and be shunned by the scientific community.
My cousin (12:31:11 AM): Thanks to this method we have purified water, electricity, airplanes, space shuttles, modern medicine, and the carrying capacity of the earth has been greatly increased.
Me (12:31:13 AM):
That was Bates own words... about the scientific men who wouldn't believe the evidence even though they saw it with their own eyes. Maybe a few of them did, but in the end it all came down to the money.
My cousin (12:31:27 AM): Or
My cousin (12:31:30 AM): maybe Bates was wrong
Me (12:31:29 AM):
You are too faithful in others to do what is right.
My cousin (12:31:40 AM): no u are
My cousin (12:31:49 AM): You are faithful that Bates was correct.
My cousin (12:31:57 AM): Even though the Scientific Community has not accepted his work
Me (12:32:02 AM):
Look, I have read both the works of optometrists, as well as Bates own works. Have you read both?
My cousin (12:32:11 AM): Why to this day is it still not accepted?
My cousin (12:32:30 AM): I have read neither, and I am not an optometrists. I know little about the human eye.
My cousin (12:32:42 AM): I have great respect for those who dedicated 10 years of their life to do so.
Me (12:32:36 AM):
Before you declare Bates quackery, I suggest you take his own word rather than mine. Do some researching, read more about it directly from Bates own words.
My cousin (12:32:54 AM): My only question is
My cousin (12:33:09 AM): How come the Scientific Community , to this day, does not recognize Bates method. IE : where is the proof?
My cousin (12:33:56 AM): If I take Bates word before I decide whether his word is credible, then i am begging the question, which is a logical fallicy.
My cousin (12:34:11 AM): I am trying to examine it, but I am not an expert on the human eye.
My cousin (12:34:32 AM): I put my trust in those who have been to medical school and contemporary scientist who help correct peoples vision.
My cousin (12:34:45 AM): Call me too faithful but i trust them more than Bates who wrote a book in 1920.
My cousin (12:35:07 AM): If I were proved wrong one day, and it turns out that Bates is correct I will change my view.
My cousin (12:35:37 AM): But without evidence I am going to have to side with the optomitrist i'm afraid. Its nothing personal its just I can't accept it without evidence. And I am NOT qualified to judge the evidence.
Me (12:38:58 AM):
The proof is in this 700-page book which has much of Bates own research and work in it: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Better-Eyesight-Complete-Magazines-William/dp/1556433514/sr=1-1/qid=1169541255/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5384755-7731936?ie=UTF8&s=books ">http://www.amazon.com/Better-Eyesight-C ... ooks </a><!-- m --> and Bates own published book which you can readily check out and see all the graphic pictures you want (even though Bates wrongly advocated looking directly at the sun during daytime): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.iblindness.org/books/bates/">http://www.iblindness.org/books/bates/</a><!-- m --> . If you are talking about contemporary evidence, there are NVI (Natural Vision Improvement) centers set up in parts of the U.S. and across the world which are practicing Bates Method and improving their eyesight, until society is ready to accept that declining eyesight can be reversed. Too many people are too skeptical and when one of them finds it successful, the others have a enough time believing it.
My cousin (12:39:26 AM): Are NVI backed by the Scientific Community?
My cousin (12:39:52 AM): Also I am not qualified to examine evidence concerning the human eye. I am going to trust people who dedicated their life to studying the human eye to do that.
My cousin (12:39:59 AM): Also you are begging the question.
My cousin (12:40:09 AM): You can't prove a text is correct by citing that text.
My cousin (12:40:16 AM): IE : The book is true because the book says so.
Me (12:40:11 AM):
The Scientific Community isn't God. They have changed their beliefs many times over the years once they find out they've been wrong about something all along.
My cousin (12:40:35 AM): Of course they change their beliefs, that is the entire POINT.
Me (12:40:39 AM):
Now you're saying the Scientific Community's own facts are always straight, and it's static and non-dynamic? Think again.
My cousin (12:40:48 AM): If one piece of evidence contridicts a theory it is discarded or changed.
My cousin (12:41:02 AM): No i NEVER said they are always straight.
My cousin (12:41:12 AM): They are ALWAYS changing as new evidence is found.
My cousin (12:41:21 AM): Repeatable Double Blind experiments.
My cousin (12:42:19 AM): You are the one who needs to seriously read about the Scientific Method, and the defination of Theory versus Hypothesis. You should also read about how Scientific Publications are done, and how Science progresses.
My cousin (12:42:55 AM): Its 2:42 am I need to go to bed. But if you like I would love to continue this conversation another time.
My cousin (12:43:16 AM): Good night , hope to talk to you again soon.
My cousin signed off at 12:43:27 AM.
My cousin is offline and will receive your IMs when signing back in.
Me (12:44:35 AM):
Bates studied the eye anatomy and knew it better than all his contemporaries.. heck, he taught them at one of the best universities in the country; and he was very highly established in the optometry field. He was an optometrist himself at one time and followed the orthodox method, he prescribed glasses for people. He found out that eyesight could be reversed, and dedicated his life to this cause. He examined Helmholtz's Theory of Accommodation from stratch which NO ONE else had ever done, for 80 years from 1850 to 1920, and haven't since then until the 1990s. Bates waited 35 years after he started out as an optometrist and several years of learning more about this before publishing his findings in a book.
(end of conversation)
When he left, I realized I hadn't been clear about everything. Just before leaving, he went on to describe the "scientific hierarchy of facts", which is a common trap in Western civilization when one accepts too readily that everything modern is better and fixes any previous errors. This is the same cultural revelance Dave was referring to in another thread and why it's important to understand how culture can have a profound influence on people and why it's important to have different communication approaches when explaining Bates to people who have deeply rooted beliefs. Otherwise they shut down and automatically refuse to listen. Unless, given the circumstances, there's something I'm not aware about that he's correct about. And any help in understanding this is appreciated.
