Re: How to Persuade Skeptics 101

[Minesweeper]

Arguments to be used to persuade skeptics of Bates' Method.
---------------------------------------
#1

The mental process is required to decode objects out there, and it can also influence how we see. An example of how is the retina image being flipped correct way down shortly after birth. Another example of how is optical illusions, such as a small single-shade gray square appearing different next to different shades of gray and black. Yet another example of how is looking at a dot in middle of an animated swirl for 30 seconds, then looking away to find the vision has “curved� itself in several places, rippling like a water’s surface. Our vision can play tricks on us. It’s known as perceptive intelligence, the capability to interpret what we see differently. Imagination can define how we see. To imagine something is to believe, even if only temporarily. It would be illogical to dismiss the possibility that the mind also has the power to “blur� and “clear up� what we see, since vision is not strictly a physical function.

---------------------------------------
#2

Skeptics often question why no scientific study has ever been done to test out Bates Method. Well, the Scientific Method is the greatest knowledge filter to man, and its double blind study (one of its RCCTs) is considered unassailable. But let me show you why randomized controlled clinical trials (RCCTs) are incapable of accurately duplicating results of the Bates Method. This is due to the Bates Method being based on the mind "believing" in what it is doing, without subconscious resistance (skepticism). There is no scientific tool to accurately gauge subconscious resistance (skepticism). Vision is largely a mental process (the brain flips the retina's image after birth so we can see things the correct way), and it is skepticism itself that impairs the mind's ability to believe in something. If the brain were skeptical of the world being the correct way down, then we'd still see the world upside-down as the retina (physical aspect of the eye) intended. Science has shown this to be correct, but scientists are mistaken when they say that Bates method is pseudoscience because that would be hypocritical since how we see is based on the brain's ability to "believe" in what we're seeing.

Skepticism (subconsciously and consciously) would completely undermine any conclusive comparison between the outcomes for the ¨placebo¨ subjects and the experimental subjects in an RCCT. Science (by the way it's being taught) is contradicting itself by disregarding that Bates Method could be a valid approach to changing how the brain "sees" things, which in turn affects our vision. Science is disclaiming its previous findings by doing this, which seems very illogical.

[Minesweeper]

#3

Someone else's own words:

<!-- e --><a href="mailto:t...@dgbt.doc.ca">t...@dgbt.doc.ca</a><!-- e --> (Ted Grusec) wrote:
>This Bates thing has been around for 50 years that I know about, and
>probably a lot longer than that.  Surely, if there was something to
>it, there should be lots of evidence by now.  If not, why not?

    This is a good question.  It is not a good reason to dismiss Bates
therapy out of hand, but it is a very good question.  I would like to
offer a guess or two:

    Scientific studies are made difficult by the very nature of the
technique.  Changing habits (i.e., visual habits) is a slow difficult
problem, and challenges different people in different ways.  It requires
motivation, mental focusing, consistency.  The habits of strain that
we are trying to correct may well have a psychological source.  It may
be that the "disease" called myopia, is the tendency to handle stress
by straining eye muscles.  Changing a tendency (or habit) is not the
same as administering a drug and waiting for a result.  It is not the
same as performing a surgery or prescribing a lens.
      That paragraph was unclear.  The point is that these techniques
may not work the same for all people and there are so many factors
involved in changing a habit over a long term that it is difficult to
create a "scientific" study.
    Perhaps this is not a good reason.

    Another guess.  There is a strong bias in the medical community
that makes it favor attack-the-symptom, drug-based medicine.  Since the
Bates method involves quite a bit of psychology, it may be dismissed by some
out of hand.  [Western medical] "Doctors" do not deal with pshychology.
    Dr. Bates, who was at one point in his career a well respected
member of the optical community, was discredited as soon as he came out
with his "unorthodox" theories of focusing and the nature of most visual
error.  [I can't remember the exact history as I sit here, but this
happened back in the 1910s]  I believe that the entrenched orthodox
doctors have a vested interest in NOT looking into these techniques.
    Am I being too cynical?
    I honestly do not understand why there are not more Bates doctors
around, because it has been my experience that his assumptions are true.

    Another problem with Bates therapy:  (this is not reason why there
is little scientific support of Bates' work, but rather a reason why
it remains a little used therapy) it demands that glasses be used as
little as possible during the therapy (which could last for months and
months).  This is a very difficult obstacle to deal with in this society.
Driving is a must, etc.

    In any case, I believe that it is worth looking into oneself.  There
are numerous historical examples of long-held medical beliefs (held by
the experts of the day) that were later shown to be false.  If you are
interested in trying to restore health to your vision, I hope that you
will consider this unorthodox method and judge with your own personal
experience as to its truth.

Dave

--------------------------------------
#4
Refution to Dave:

<!-- e --><a href="mailto:t...@dgbt.doc.ca">t...@dgbt.doc.ca</a><!-- e --> (Ted Grusec) wrote:
>Look. It's really very simple.  Either the Bates method can improve
>your vision or it cannot.  Nothing mystical.  An eye chart pre- and
>post-test is all that's needed to substantiate efficacy in this case.
>Forget the "theory".  Bates proposed a training procedure over 50
>years ago.  Either it substantially works or not, and its verification
>should be as straightforward as anything can be.  So why has there
>been no investigation?  No fancy instruments or hocu-pocus is needed
>here.  It would be a very doable science project for a high school
>student.  One control group (no Bates), one experimental group
>(Bates), with the two groups chosen to be as similar as possible in
>terms of degree and kinds of visual defects, and statistically
>assigned on unknown or uncontrollable variables.  There is absolutely
>no reason in the world this can't be properly investigated for those
>of us that demand some simple logic.

And then in response,
  <!-- e --><a href="mailto:bsi...@elvis.stsci.edu">bsi...@elvis.stsci.edu</a><!-- e --> (Bernie Simon) wrote:

>Thanks for the posting. This is the kind of thing I would like to see
>more of on this group. Either actual experience of improvement with
>some alternative treatment or clinical results. Let's see more facts
>and fewer abstract statements like "alternative medicine is all
>fraudulant" or "Western medicine is a conspiracy to make sick people
>sicker".

---------------------------------------
#5

Dave's reply to #4:

    I doubt you would accept my personal anecdotal evidence: that my
eyes (since Bates) produce clear (20/20) flashes on a regular basis.  It
is true that on my worst days, when I am stressed or down, my vision gets
fairly poor again.  But the fact that it is POSSIBLE for my eyes to focus
clearly, is sure evidence to me that the western belief that myopes have
unalterably misshapen corneas is false!
    There are vision therapists out there with patients who pay to have
training in Bates-type techniques.  Is this evidence for you that there
is something to it?      <---- (note by me: I'd omit this paragraph before
showing to skeptics because it's not a good argument. There are people
who will pay for anything. This is not good evidence (independent of whether
the therapy works or not). We don't want to give the skeptic a way out,
an excuse to "act out" even if it does work.

    Bates vision therapy is a slow, demanding process producing results
that depend entirely on the consistency and self-discipline of the patient.
It is a method of changing habits. ...is there proof that those nicotine
patches help people to quit smoking?  Well, that depends on the person
and his psychology, his self-discipline, etc.  And so it is with the
Bates method.  Are people who have success with the method proof that it
works?  I think so---I think they are proof that the premises are true;
that the method CAN work.  But nothing is guaranteed in terms of results
because so much depends on the effort produced by each individual patient.
    Unlike the mask-the-symptom quick-fix that glasses are, Bates offers a
theory and a technique which I am convinced shows a way to correct visual
errors permanently.
    M. Simon, I am offering you my "actual experience of improvement with
some alternative treatment".  I am sorry to see the Bates method passed
off so easily by M. Grusec.  I understand and certainly admire the fact
that he is seeking truth.  But my inability to point to some study that he
would find acceptable proof should not be a reason to dismiss the Bates
method out of hand.  I have offered some evidence; my experience has been
enough to convince me.  I have offered reasons why it is hard to prove, in
a black and white manner, that Bates' ideas are correct because results
are not guaranteed.  I hope that minds have not been closed to this subject.


Discussion located at:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://groups.google.com.vc/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thread/e0721c1ec05613c2/0e2e8886f731806e#0e2e8886f731806e">http://groups.google.com.vc/group/misc. ... 86f731806e</a><!-- m -->

[Minesweeper]

HOW THE ARGUMENTS CAN BE USED



First, allow me to clarify why I created the "Fallacies of the Scientific Method" thread and especially the somewhat true yet deceiving argument#2 shown above. This will come as a great surprise to those of you who have read my previous thread.

My arguments#1 and #2 are arguments that can be readily used on any skeptic to remove/cure doubt. I acknowledge that my last thread "Fallacies of the Scientific Method" probably isn't true at all in regard to Bates Method being "unresearchable through RCCTs". I did this on purpose. In fact, it seems the Bates Method can be scientifically researched and proven.

The problem is that if you provide direct scientific evidence of improvements through scientific research or even observable changes, skeptics might dismiss it as flawed research/mistrial/lucky coincidence. You have to deal with illogical people in illogical ways.

There are very few who will believe direct scientific evidence, so by providing skeptics with my arguments#1 and #2, you will be able to possibly convince the MAJORITY of skeptics. I know this sounds very unprincipled, but it seems just as wrong for skeptics to behave and think illogically. We need to make them question their own beliefs by first "convincing" them that there is indeed a reason the Scientific Method cannot accurately evaluate the Bates Method (although this is untrue), as well as how scientists can easily distort their perceptions (true).

Even people who are interested in Bates Method and still skeptical need to be given arguments#1 and #2 AT FIRST, because they could still be skeptical that any scientific research has validity. DON'T show them the research until later. Giving arguments#1 and #2 can motivate them to think differently.

They need to think to themselves, "Is it possible that what I've been taught to believe isn't necessarily correct?" They need to learn to question their core beliefs... this is an important step in removing doubt due to social/hereditary prejudices.

Since we are dealing with illogical people who won't adhere to logic, we have to deal with them illogically (in a way that is not considered normal logic).

Make sense? I hope so. I hope I don't sound like a terrible person saying all this - but this is communication with intent to achieve a desired end result (persuading them). Arguments#1 and #2 are not very long, and if someone has 3 minutes, they can read the arguments and decide. As an additional resource, arguments #3, #4, and #5 can be used to show people how hard it is to convince others, from the perspective of a person who appears "normal" as well as being "sane" (to further persuade them).

Bates wrote, "The fact is that, except in rare cases, man is not a reasoning being." It wouldn't have made sense to most people if someone told them that eyesight can be directly controlled by making the mind "believe" differently, but to me this was inituitive knowledge based on previous knowledge of how the image projected on the retina is seen upside-down. This fact that the mind had to "believe" otherwise the world would still be upside-down to me told me that it was clearly possible the mind has its own idiosyncrasies in modifying how we see everything. It, therefore, seemed very possible to me that our distance vision could be affected by the mind, as well as color depth and so on.

As soon as I learned about Bates principles in accord to what I already knew, it seemed perfectly logical, and I had no doubt whatsoever of its validity. My own experiences with 'clear flashes' which are so different from very blurry eyesight have incapacitated me from any possibility of denial. This never happened before, and no one can un-scientifically be able to read something at 20/20 on a letter chart, whereas only a second ago he could only see 4/20 with the better eye! This is excluding any type of eye tricks (watery eyes, squinting, bending the head). This was directly from my eyes with no modification except in my mind. I cannot deny this, so if the skeptics doubt my authencity, they still have to argue with the statement presented in arguments#1 and #2! It shows how scientific men have twisted their understanding of science by too readily accepting a mechanistic view regarding how the eye works. They have very little choice but to concede that vision is a largely mental process.

Not everyone, including people who are top optometrists/researchers, will accept argument#2 because they know how the eye can be tested to conclude that Bates is correct. Even if they're presented with scientific research evidence, they may dismiss it as quackery study. But they will still have to deal with the people whose mindsets have been changed by arguments#1 and #2, and perhaps one day they'll give in once they notice too many people whose eyesight have improved in a way that does not seem to follow what they've been taught.

Here is tentative proof of a successful scientific research done on Bates Method:  <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.php/topic,357.0.html">http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.p ... 357.0.html</a><!-- m -->

This thread does not cite where to find Michael McClay's dissertation, but I believe this experiment did happen. I would like to know how to obtain a copy of the academic research papers as well as McClay's dissertation.

Otis: where can the scientific research papers be found? As well as the dissertion? Would anyone happen to know? Thanks 

[otis]

Dear Friend,

Otis: where can the scientific research papers be found? As well as the dissertation? Would anyone happen to know? Thanks   

Otis>  I learned a long time ago that the majority-opinion OD
believes that if he can make vision very, VERY sharp in
5 minutes -- that that is SCIENCE.  And he further believes
that anyone who OBJECTS to this minus quick-fix method
(of the last 400 years) must be variously:

1.  Demented

2.  A flake

3.  Crazy

4.  NOT SCIENTIFIC

Etc.  I would agree that if you are dealing with
a great mass of the population that expects
BOTH.

1.  A magic quick-fix in 5 minutes, and

2.  Long-term PREVENTION, that you will
never achieve anything at all.

In effect we CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

The would mean accepting some "compromise" -- or
continue this "lock-step" march into stair-case myopia.

Further, you must define "research papers".  You
should ask about the "vested interests" of these
"researchers".  (i.e., there intense interest
in maintaining the status=quo).  For all practical
purposes, it is putting the "foxes" in charge
of the chicken coop -- and asking the foxes
to write "research papers".

But there are second-opinion research
papers showing that plus-prevention is
possible.  You can find them at:

<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.myopiafree.com">http://www.myopiafree.com</a><!-- w -->

Remember I support BATES in this manner.
I am certain he is correct about the
effect that a minus always has on
the refractive STATE of the natural eye.

When Bates made his famous statement that if
you are at 20/70, and begin wearing an
over-prescribed minus all the time, why
in NO TIME, your naked eye vision will
get down to 20/200.

When he made this statement, you could not
PROVE the case for stair-case myopia from a
combination of:

1. Our modern educational system, compounded
by,

2.  That wretched minus lens.

So the issue becomes a matter of facing facts
when the child is at 20/70.  Exactly what
the hell are you going to do about it?

The proposals are:

1.  Bates, in that the child's refractive STATE
can be cleared to 20/20, and/or

2.  The plus, in that the child's "environment" is
changed with a strong plus, and the parent
monitors the child and verifies that
the child's refractive STATE (and Snellen)
slowly clears to 20/40 or better.


Neither of these two proposals has EVER
been checked in a scientific manner.

That remains a scientific task for the future.

Best,

Otis

[David]

Dave's reply to #4:

Just to be clear, this was a different Dave than me.

[Minesweeper]

Otis: thanks for showing what other proposals have never been checked in a scientific manner. This is exactly why we have to use argument#2, because we have very little research to support the Bates Method and too many people don't understand how scientists have distorted the reasoning process of science even though the principles behind the Bates Method are very logical from a true scientific perspective.
Anyway, what about the scientific research papers and dissertion by Michael McClay? Where did you cite them from, and is there a way to get the papers themselves?

Dave: I know it was a different Dave, and I apologize for not clarifying this. It was late at night when I typed all this up, and I observed this but it wasn't until after I turned off the computer that I realized I probably should've commented on that. I'd rather keep the posts neat and organized without an editted message at the bottom of the post now that others have posted. I hope it's not too big a deal.

More about arguments#1 and #2: It is possible you could ask the person after showing both arguments: "What do you think? True or false?" (this will instinctively hold them to a prior confession that compels against skepticism the next time they think about anything), and "If this is true (referring to argument#1), then the only person and method to my knowledge that has done actual scientific studies on how to change how we see directly from the mind itself is William H. Bates and the Bates Method. I am offering you my 'actual experience of improvement with some alternative treatment'." It is politely worded, and through their understanding of argument#2, they can be convinced by you that there might be something to it. This is not a certainty, however.

FYI I have never seen anyone write an article on how to convince skeptics of the Bates Method, so I decided to be the first. I believe what I've typed up shows a clear and easy communicative way to do it, while at the same time addressing their doubts directly at the source: hereditary prejudices.

As always, all comments and disagreements are welcome.

[otis]

Dear Spock>

Spock>  Anyway, what about the scientific research papers and dissertation by Michael McClay? Where did you cite them from, and is there a way to get the papers themselves?

Otis> Sorry, I do not know who Michael ;McClay is, nor have
I ever cited his papers -- obviously.

Otis> But I would as the person interested in SCIENCE,
and intellectual struggle in science for CONCEPT of
the natural or fundamental eye to read the
book by Thomas Kuhn titled, "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions".

Otis>  In the book the need for precise definitions,
like refractive STATE, not refractive organic-defect
are strongly stressed.

Otis>  If you start with the incorrect description
word, laced with false assumptions -- you
simply get wrapped around the axle in
any further discussion.

Best,

Otis