Convincing a Skeptic#2 (Part 2)

[Minesweeper]

My cousin (10:48:12 PM): heh found the section on how holographs work let me look in one of my older books for the other example though
My cousin (10:53:47 PM): hrm i cant find it online but i did find a lot of the other ones in my book
My cousin (10:53:50 PM): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.planetperplex.com/en/optical_illusions.html">http://www.planetperplex.com/en/optical_illusions.html</a><!-- m -->
My cousin (10:54:01 PM): not sure if thats one of the ones your referign to though but they are pretty cool
Me (10:54:52 PM):  yep, and it said at that site: "Every image must be interpreted by the brain. Sometimes that process can go wrong."
My cousin (10:55:14 PM): which is exactly my point?
My cousin (10:56:17 PM): of course the process can go wrong, some people have much better eyesite than others, and the eye is a product of natural selection, which did a pretty good job based on what it had to work with.
My cousin (10:58:17 PM): this one is aweosme lol
My cousin (10:58:18 PM): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.planetperplex.com/en/img.php?id=165">http://www.planetperplex.com/en/img.php?id=165</a><!-- m -->
Me (10:59:04 PM):  Hmm... 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 Bates and the Bates Method. Who else do you know that has done this and provided a conclusive way to do it using fundamentals that make sense?
Me (10:59:27 PM):  Yeah, that one is awesome!
My cousin (10:59:43 PM): i have no idea lol i have never gone looking for ways to change how i see.
My cousin (10:59:51 PM): I'm pretty confident many scientist have.
My cousin (11:00:06 PM): Especially since they know how the eye works in a physical sense.
My cousin (11:00:37 PM): heres a cool site that is kind of like a chapter in one of my physics books
My cousin (11:00:39 PM): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/humanvision/accommodation/index.html">http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java ... index.html</a><!-- m -->
My cousin (11:00:42 PM): has a nice slider and stuff
Me (11:00:46 PM):  Bates once wrote this: "About fifteen years ago, before the medical society of Greater New York, I read a paper on the prevention and cure of imperfect sight in schoolchildren, illustrated with stereopticon pictures. Physicians who attended were very much interested in what I had to say. In the course of my reading I mentioned that most books on ophthalmology have published the statement that nearsightedness was made worse by an effort or strain to read at less than six inches or to read in a dim light. I went on to say that a careful study of the facts demonstrated that much reading in a dim light at the near point will not produce nearsightedness in schoolchildren, but will produce the opposite condition, farsightedness. A great many members rose up immediately to disprove this statement. They were unable to favorably impress those present because not one of them had investigated the subject. They admitted that they condemned such statements because most German physicians and many French, Italian and others had, like them, condemned the methods employed from hearsay and not from actual investigation or experience."
My cousin (11:02:08 PM): That reads like an exerpt out of the early 1900's lol, the science of optics has progressed enormously since then im sure.
My cousin (11:02:21 PM): People even get lazer eye surgery
Me (11:03:49 PM):  The last site you showed me says, "As people age, the lens becomes harder and cannot be properly focused, leading to poor vision."  This understanding of accommodation is based on Helmholtz's Theory of Accommodation from the 1850s.
Me (11:03:59 PM):  Take a look at this:
Me (11:04:00 PM):  <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_von_Helmholtz">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_von_Helmholtz</a><!-- m -->
Me (11:04:26 PM):  It shows there plain and clear, "His theory of accommodation went unchallenged until the final decade of the 20th century."
Me (11:04:47 PM):  Why wait so long, since this is the foundation that LASIK and other things are based on?
My cousin (11:04:56 PM): lol
My cousin (11:05:05 PM): wait so long for what?
Me (11:05:11 PM):  But Bates did challenge Helmholtz's theory, and found it wrong, but the Board of Optometrists refused to accept it
My cousin (11:05:28 PM): and probably for good reason lol
My cousin (11:05:38 PM): Bates had a lot of silly ideas.
My cousin (11:05:50 PM): I don't know what he brought to the board
My cousin (11:05:59 PM): But if it was solid why would they reject it??
Me (11:07:37 PM):  One thing that doesn't make sense to me with your reasoning is why the Board of Optometry would dismiss Bates so easily if he was actually the leading (and most respected) optometrist at the top school of optometry in the country during his time, teaching optometrists himself, and also the founder of adrenaline. He had 25+ years as an optometrist before he changed to his method which was much different than what he originally taught to other optometrists
My cousin (11:07:47 PM): theres lots of articles on the net written by doctors that can critique it better than i could.
My cousin (11:08:21 PM): Its because Science isnt supposed to respect authority or prestige, it only focuses on the idea in discussion
My cousin (11:08:38 PM): Even if someone like Einstein proposed something sloppy it would be revoked *and was*
My cousin (11:09:13 PM): Doesnt necessarily mean einstein was a bad scientist, he had great work w/ relativity and the photoelectric effect. But his theory of unification was garbage.
Me (11:16:19 PM):  My own actual experiences entirely overthrow how scientific men understand how the eye works. I'm sorry but in light of this I cannot deny my own experiences because my average vision is no longer 4/20 but 10/20. I passed the strict California DMV test yesterday with no problems. I am offering you my 'actual experience of improvement with some alternative treatment' even though it doesn't fit what you've been taught. 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 is no other way to explain the 'clear flashes of 20/20' I'm having through anything your science textbook can tell you. I am offering you my own actual experience, whywould I lie about it?
Me (11:17:58 PM):  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.
My cousin (11:19:07 PM): How would u know whether my science text book can explain it or not lol
My cousin (11:19:28 PM): I'm pretty sure if you asked an optomologist he/she could shed some light on the issue.
Me (11:20:55 PM):  Believe me, I've looked. I've done searches on the Internet. I've read into traditional optometry books. I've read unorthodox books as well.
My cousin (11:21:20 PM): In any event im kind of getting tired of trying to explain that the vision process is physically determined through the body / brain.
My cousin (11:21:51 PM): To think you've studied anywhere near what an optomologist has about the eye is silly, if you really want to know why you should ask one of them.
Me (11:24:11 PM):  Read this: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.eyerobics.net/robics6.html">http://www.eyerobics.net/robics6.html</a><!-- m -->
Me (11:24:25 PM):  Look where it says Dr. Bates Method Proven By Research
My cousin (11:24:46 PM): have a look at this
My cousin (11:24:46 PM): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bates.html">http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bates.html</a><!-- m -->
Me (11:26:29 PM):  <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.outlook-insight.com/forum1/viewtopic.php?t=300">http://www.outlook-insight.com/forum1/v ... .php?t=300</a><!-- m -->
Me (11:26:37 PM):  I've seen that quackwatch post before
My cousin (11:26:56 PM): lol
Me (11:26:54 PM):  You can find anyone who wants to call anything a quack
My cousin (11:27:06 PM): these people actually think its a conspiracy
My cousin (11:27:12 PM): sure you probably can
Me (11:27:15 PM):  even BBB isn't always trustworthy. Why should Quackwatch.org be?
My cousin (11:27:53 PM): well i thikn im done w/ this , kind of tired of spending hours trying to help ya out. I'm sure youll figure it out eventually hehe
Me (11:27:57 PM):  Look Brian, can I say one more thing
My cousin (11:28:07 PM): this is just like that business fraud thing
My cousin (11:28:10 PM): sure
Me (11:32:08 PM):  There's nothing in the optometry books I can find (I've looked everywhere, believe me) that will explain how I obtain 20/20 clear flashes, and I'm sure the optometrists won't be able to explain either. I know through my own experiences with several different techniques that have produced constant results that are permanent, and no harm has come to my eyes because of it. As long as no harm has come to my ey es, and my vision is improving, why should I disregard bates Method because some so-called "experts" claim they know better, against my own experiences which are right in front of my nose. It follows with what Einstein once said, "The skeptic will say: "It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it corresponds to nature." You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. ... Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it."
Me (11:33:00 PM):  That's about it.
My cousin (11:33:13 PM): well if thats good enough for you enjoy it then
My cousin (11:33:27 PM): im not convinced but whatever works for you i guess
Me (11:33:22 PM):  okay no problem
Me (11:33:27 PM):  enjoyed this conversation though
My cousin (11:33:46 PM): same here though i am getting pretty tired
My cousin (11:33:55 PM): been up since about 4am your time had early lab lol
Me (11:34:30 PM):  Yeah I need to get my sleep. Got to contact my dad tomorrow am about getting driver tag for car. Take care
My cousin (11:34:43 PM): later

------------------------------------------------

What do you think, guys? Was I being clear? Did I do a good job communicating? What do you think about the things he said? i.e. What is your understanding of the optics mechanism in relationship to optics and physics that he's referring to?

Do you have any observations to make regarding anything?  Comments and suggestions are welcome.

[otis]

Dear Spock,

Bates said that if you place a strong minus on the
natural eye with 20/70 (about a -1.25 to -2 diopter lens)
and WEAR IT ALL THE TIME, well by golly, your
refractive STATE will go rapidly down, and
you naked eye will be 20/200.


OK, I am skeptical about this behavior of the living
eye.

So I take a bunch of eyes, and place a -3 diopter lens
on them. 

Watch what happens to the eye when
it has a -3 diopter lens (Blue Tint Animation).

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html">http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html</a><!-- m -->

That is all that it takes to convince me that
the minus lens is the WORST POSSIBLE ANSWER
to threshold nearsightedness.

Sure, the minus is impressive.  Sure the
OD does not want to create stair-case
myopia in you.

But the living eye always responds this
way.

This is science, not medicine.

Show him this example of what Bates
said about the presumed "safety" of
that wretched minus.

Tell us of his judgment.

Best,

Otis

[David]

Otis, please make a new topic instead of hijacking threads by replying with your own views that have nothing to do with what he wrote. You keep doing it, over and over. Also, please quit changing Bates's words to make it look like he agreed with your own views. I'm open minded, but it's not a matter of interpretation when you change all the words, and the whole meaning of a statement, and say Bates said it; it's misinformation.


Spock,

I'd really be surprised if you got anywhere at all with your cousin as far as him questioning whether everything he's taught in school is true. If you're getting something out of it, great, but it sounds frustrating to me. He doesn't understand that there are different ways of seeing things, and that certain things make sense only if you take for granted certain underlying premises, which people don't always see alternatives to. He might benefit from Kuhn's writings on paradigm shifts.

Dave

[otis]

Dear Spock and Dave,

Spock> Do you have any observations to make regarding anything?  Comments and suggestions are welcome.

I responded to Spock as he requested.  I may be that
some people do not "get" the danger of the minus lens.
And that is OK by me.

But if Spock is trying to convince his cousin to do something
different, he needs to show that the minus is dangerous
at best.  And that blue-tint concept is very accurate.

You must realize that you can not "convince" a
person to do something HE DOES NOT WANT
TO DO.  And this can be Bates-prevention,
plus-prevention, or go on a diet and lose
weight.

If a person is comfortable being -2 diopters with
20/140 vision, then any "talking" to them
is a waste of your time.

Only AFTER a person makes up his mind that
he wishes to clear his vision, from say
20/70 to 20/20 by Bates or any other method,
is any progress possible.

Best,

Otis

[Kazekage]

Dear Spock,

Bates said that if you place a strong minus on the
natural eye with 20/70 (about a -1.25 to -2 diopter lens)
and WEAR IT ALL THE TIME, well by golly, your
refractive STATE will go rapidly down, and
you naked eye will be 20/200.


OK, I am skeptical about this behavior of the living
eye.

So I take a bunch of eyes, and place a -3 diopter lens
on them. 

Watch what happens to the eye when
it has a -3 diopter lens (Blue Tint Animation).

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html">http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html</a><!-- m -->

That is all that it takes to convince me that
the minus lens is the WORST POSSIBLE ANSWER
to threshold nearsightedness.

Sure, the minus is impressive.  Sure the
OD does not want to create stair-case
myopia in you.

But the living eye always responds this
way.

This is science, not medicine.

Show him this example of what Bates
said about the presumed "safety" of
that wretched minus.

Tell us of his judgment.

Best,

Otis

LOL that seemed so random I almost fell off my chair laughing! (Though now I realize that it was quite relevant).

It must have been the way you said 'well by golly' LOL I haven't heard that one in years.

There's one thing I don't understand; it seems as though you write stuff out in MS Notepad and then copy and paste it into your post - because you never use the whole line, instead going about a quarter of the way through and then going onto the next!! Not that I mind it all that much, I was just wondering why you do that?

Anyway, great argument there, but if I was in his cousin's position I must admit I would have been just as arrogant. I would be feeling like - 'although I might not be able to prove what I say I'm sure there's other scientists who have got the knowledge, and have done the research to prove this DAMNED guy wrong!'

You know what I mean?

[Minesweeper]

Dave, It is somewhat frustrating, but I don't let it bother me too much. I probably won't get anywhere with my cousin, but my aim has two purposes- 1) Convince him if possible,  2) Develop my understanding of how people like him reason, to improve how I present information next time.  Here is how I picture this:  the skeptic is in a large room with many doors, as many as 100 doors. Currently, there are many doors open (ways to defend himself). He tells me all he knows, unknowingly of my intent. The doors get closed one by one, until none of them are open anymore. Then I refine what I have learned in this process of reasoning, and put the context of what I know into the fewest words possible that are as explicit as possible (the large room shrinks, giving him less room to move around). The next time I present information to someone, the room's already small, and the doors are already closed. well, you get the idea. It won't work for everyone, but the person will need to have the slightest doubt in his mind of his beliefs first, and the slightest feeling that I could be right. Then something could come out of it... But I know you are right about the paradigm shift relevance needing to be taken care of. I probably won't talk to my cousin about this again for a long time, but I see it as an experience to learn from.

Otis, my cousin won't take notice even if direct scientific evidence was presented to him, nor if all the cards were laid on the table. Your way is a so-called 'logical' way of dealing with illogical people that has failed time and time again... you need to deal with illogical people accordingly (in ways not considered normal logic). I want to show you something about how communication works. Shad Helmstetter, who wrote books on cognitive behavioral therapy, revealed:

1.  Programming creates beliefs.
2.  Beliefs create attitudes.
3.  Attitudes create feelings.
4.  Feelings determine actions.
5.  Actions create results.

Your previous commentary of your story entitled "The Printer's Son" suggested 'people's attitudes cannot be changed, so it's useless to try.' This is starting at the (3) Attitude level, assuming that attitude cannot be changed. That is the most common mistake made in communication with people. By giving evidence of optometry studies, you are not doing anything to change their attitude. Wrong approach, Otis. The way to change people's attitudes is to start at the (1) Programming and (2) Beliefs level.

How many people do you know who know how to do this? 99.99% of people don't really have the slightest idea. It's similar to how people try to treat the symptoms rather than the cause. I'm working on the cause itself, and there are very few people out there who try, let alone know, how to address the cause of people's attitudes. It takes practice and time to develop an inituitive ability to address people's beliefs, and I've only known how for less than a year now. If I can awaken their numb senses to the truth, perhaps they'll be motivated to find the truth.  This corresponds with Galileo's thinking, "You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him to find it for himself."

Kage, I was wondering the same thing myself about Otis' format when the lines end abruptly. Thanks for saying this was a great argument. I'm sure I could've done better. One thing I could have been more clear about is that the body (including brain) and mind need to be treated separately. My cousin thinks the brain and the mind are the one and same, which is treating the body as a simple organism (instead of complex organism), which corresponds with Western thought. I gave him good reasons why the brain and mind needed to be addressed separately, because the mind can be consciously controlled to switch between parasympathic and sympathic responses. Also, brains can develop tumors, and I fail to see why the mind (thought and emotion) cannot physically manifest and cause tumors of the brain. However, I did not address his beliefs in a way that would make him "paradigm shift"-conscious... that has to be addressed first before anything else.

He is like millions of other people who aren't fully prepared in advance, but I consider his audience 'category' a good starting place to practice with. I'm first learning how to persuade this certain type of audience so I can get a 'feel' for addressing all people starting with their own programming and beliefs.

Who knows, maybe someday I'll actually succeed in convincing even a hardcore skeptic, even though odds may be 1:100,000,000 against me... and I've beat those odds before.

[otis]

Dear Friends,

I "date" myself!

I started working on computers -- WAY BACK.

The original ASR-33 teletypes had NO CARRAGE RETURN!!!

The result was that you typed -- right off the page.

So I got into the habit of putting in the CR/LF, because
there was no choice.

And yes this PROVES that old habit DIE HARD.

But that is my argument with the majority-opinion ODs.

===============

Logical arguments with illogical people.

Yes, Spock is right.

I am a logical engineer.  I ask that type of question.

It was Raphaelson who convinced me that it  was
IMPOSSIBLE for a "Medical person" (third party)
to help you.

In its essence, Bates is about empowering YOU
to use his methods -- and become successful.

He certainly empowered me to go "looking" for
people like Raphaelson, Prentice and others.

For me, logic and science "win" the day -- but
it is pure intellect.

For "human nature" it is impossible.  (Yes Spock,
you are right.)

I say that it is possible to PREVENT obesity.
From a LOGICAL, SCIENTIFIC perspective,
Spock and I are right.  From an "human nature"
perspective we are wrong.  I mean, how
many fat kids are there?

Just starve them, and they will lose weight.

But who is going to do that???

We are indeed victims of our bad habits -- and
no one is going to change that.

As you so clearly pointed out.  But let
us get these honest fact "on the table".

Otis