I have been intertested in the Bates method for a few years now and I have one nagging question. In science in general we have pioneers, but their work is built upon and expanded. Surely bates couldn't have been right about everything, where are the scientists building upon his work, why is only bates associated with "his method". Is this simply because mainstream science simply doesn't accept the bates method? Has their actually been a definitive study on the efficacy of the Bates method or is this too difficult due to the improvements often being subjective?
It's somewhat difficult to test in a controlled study. It requires understanding, a learning process, and changing how you use your eyes every minute of the day. The whole controlled study thing seems to come from drug testing, where it makes the most sense. But anyway, there are very few people (I'd guess maybe 100) professionally teaching the Bates method on a regular basis, even part-time. There's very little organization, unity, or money involved. If you'd like to put the time and money into creating a long-term study with a recognized independent testing agency or how ever that works, go ahead! You would have the issue of who to pick for the teacher(s) and how credible your choice of teachers and conditions are. There is a lot of misunderstanding on how to do the methods or what it's all about. There has been very little communication between teachers to establish ANY agreement upon what methods are to be used with whom, when. It's chaos. It needs more time and more people regularly involved before a official study even makes sense.
As far as nobody building on it, I think you haven't looked around enough. Many people have expanded upon his methods and tied them into other methods. I don't know how effective they are, but it's been done. Ray Gottlieb, Janet Goodrich, Tom Quackenbush, to name a few. And if you read my posts here, I bring in a lot of new age perspective having to do with the mind. I don't think Bates was entirely accurate on everything, and certain things can be seen in different ways, but I still think his original methods are ingenious and a very good starting point.
Dave
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Subject: "Flashes of insight -- of Dr. Bates and others (almost NEVER mentioned.)
It seems that seprate people (MDs, ODs) have had flashes of insight (or fragmetry) "vision" of what
must be done for prevention. But Dr. Bates is the ONLY one who got "though" to some people
about the need for the person to take FULL CONTROL, and work on Snellen clearing.
But if you do this research (of the era from about 1890 to 1930) you will find people like
Dr. Prentice, Dr. Raphaelson and other "objectors" to the promiscuous use of
a minus lens. Best idea? Just call objection to the minus lens the second-opinion,
to avoid un-necessary "combat" with the powers that be.
Quote:G> I have been intertested in the Bates method for a few years now and I have one nagging question. In science in general we have pioneers, but their work is built upon and expanded.
Otis> Built up and totally IGNORED -- is more like it. It is only imagination-blindness that keeps the "hope" alive.
Quote:G> Surely bates couldn't have been right about everything,
Otis> He was not "right" about everything. No one ever is. But he was right about the danger of the
minus lens. But each of us must make his own judgment about that issue.
Quote:G> where are the scientists building upon his work, why is only bates associated with "his method".
Otis> Because prevention is not "easy". It depends NOT on any "prescribing authority", but on the
person himself. THAT type of motivation can not be "prescribed" -- in my opinion.
Quote:G> Is this simply because mainstream science simply doesn't accept the bates method?
Otis> PLEASE say main-stream MEDICINE, not SCIENCE. In fact (in the preventive concept) mainstream
SCIENCE does support what Bates said about the dangers of even STARTING to wear that wretched minus lens.
G> Has their actually been a definitive study on the efficacy of the Bates method or is this too difficult due to the improvements often being subjective?
Otis> It is difficult because of the motivational aspects of it. Also, remember that there ARE other methods that
are not strictly "Bates" -- that have worked. But I would visualize a situation where highly motivated pilots
use a combination of Bates, and other methods (before the minus) and keep their vision clear by
their own work and personal commitments.
