Talk:See Clearly Method

Company's Website inactive

[1]] is inactive, taken over by an advertiser, with links to, among others, other marketers of the method. DCDuring 17:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing this out-of-date link, DCDuring. Famousdog 02:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy, I have modified the first section to state the American Vision Institute was a corporation registered with the State of California, not "four individuals calling themselves the American Vision Institute..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dihtsop (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this information? --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Discredited Bates method

"The See Clearly Method is an eye-based exercise program based in part on the discredited Bates method" seems like an appropriate summary. The removal of "discredited" seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about the removal of a descriptive adjective. Descriptive, rather than restrictive, so that "The Bates method", "the discredited Bates method", "the ancient and respected Bates method", "the weird American Bates method", "the green with purple spots Bates method" would all refer to exactly the same entity. I cannot see how the removal of a descriptive adjective, whether justified or not, can possible violate any Wikipedia principle. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Best start with WP:IAR. I certainly can imagine many, many examples where the removal of a descriptive adjective would be detrimental to improving the encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to ignore any rule here Accurately characterizing the topic is required by policy. Due weight requires that we include the fact that the theoretical underpinnings of the method are not considered valid by current medical science. It could be argued that this need is satisfied by the wikilink, but I think we owe our readers a slightly higher standard. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound like I was suggesting that IAR needs to be applied to overrule other policies/guidelines, just that it could be applied to demonstrate the importance of proper descriptive adjectives. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, your point makes a great deal more sense now, thank you. Redacted above. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states that "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." Stating that something is "discredited" is undeniably endorsing a point of view, even if it is the dominant one. I would suggest "fringe Bates method" instead, which would be an accurate yet neutral characterization. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of tone, but of properly conveying encyclopedic information. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Maintaining an impartial tone is a part of properly conveying encyclopedic information. To be clear, are you saying you don't think "fringe Bates method" is good enough? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not just fringe, and I don't think we could clarify the meaning enough even if we linked to Pseudoscience. "Discredited" is a bit stronger than I'd like, but it gives the sense of history.

Linking to Quackery seems a bit too far as well. Pseudo-medicine would work, but again doesn't have the sense of history. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Fringe" in this context is both obscure (the reader has to be familiar with the concept of "fringe science" - a term that is used to hide all manner of sins) and is simply not sufficiently descriptive of the status of the Bates method. Rather than using a obscure and largely non-descriptive term, why can't we use a simle adjective that everybody reading this will be familiar with? "Fringe" is not an impartial term as PSWG1920 claims in thier edit summary and again here. "Fringe" sounds like Bates advocates are noble pioneers, lone geniuses pushing the boundaries of orthodoxy... when in fact the "method" is a collection of quirky and almost certainly ineffective eye exercises and psychological techniques from the early 20th Century. "Discredited" in this context is not POV or a perjorative unless you are a Bates believer and there are precious few of those around. Look at who is participating in this discussion (clue: its us again isn't it?). If however, "discredited" is too strong (some aspects of the Bates method may be effective, although it is up to practitioners to do the work to prove that this is the case), then why not tone it down and say "largely discredited" (my own recommendation in this case). To describe the Bates method as "largely discredited" is about as controversial and POV as describing Abraham Lincoln as "largely dead". Famousdog (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite it's faults, I think "discredited" is the best proposal yet. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Discredited", with or without "largely" in front of it, explicitly violates WP:NPOV#Impartial tone by taking a stance on the matter. If "fringe" is not acceptable and we can't come up with anything better, perhaps it would be best to simply drop the mention of the Bates method from the lead. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No on all counts. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. We most definitely do provide descriptive information. Take it to NPOVN. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "(largely) discredited" is entirely descriptive of the current scientific status of the Bates method, PSWG1920. This is not a point of view. It is not only the current scientific consensus, but has been the consensus for some time. Even recent works on the joys of eye exercises such as Susan Barry's book Fixing my Gaze barely mention the Bates method. (By the way, I heartily recommend Fixing my Gaze for its anecdotal description of life with a strabismus and lack of stereovision, despite the fact that it is near useless as a guide for what "works" and what doesn't) I think you are on your own here, PSWG1920, and I suggest we change the lead correspondingly. Famousdog (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I had been driven away by the utter sterility of this argument, but I must correct the dog's statement that PSWG1920 is on his own. If we're counting heads, PSWG1920 has my total support here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me Sam, but the meaning of your comment above was, well... unclear. Famousdog (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sam, please explain. This isn't a WP:VOTE. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You both really are making heavy weather of this. The famously dogmatic one wrote "I think you are on your own here, PSWG1920", and I was contradicting him.

More positively, thank you for drawing my attention to Fixing my Gaze, of which I was previously unaware. It seems to have received favourable reviews from some impressive sources, which do not seem to echo FD's view that "it is near useless as a guide for what 'works' and what doesn't". Perhaps FD had the opportunity to examine Susan Barry's visual performance before and after her course of therapy. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sam, no offense, but could you **** off and stop claiming to know more about a book that I've read and you haven't? That sort of arrogant, all-knowing attitude, your claim that this discussion is "sterile" and your hardly-veiled insult that I am "dogmatic" rather taints the faint praise that you afford me for drawing your attention to a useful source. And, yes I did say that I thought PSWG1920 was on his own because I didn't understand your cryptic ramblings. Believe it or not, we were actually having a serious discussion about how to edit the See Clearly Method article before you shuffled up. Famousdog (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is indeed sterile, so I shall stop now. Have a nice day. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Tone issues aside (which I am not convinced on, and may get back to if necessary), I'm not sure why we need to mention the Bates method in the lead. A reader unfamiliar with the subject is not likely to know what the Bates method is, and mentioning it right off the bat will only complicate matters. The Bates method is now rightly mentioned in the body of the article, where there is more room for explanation and we are not limited to one or two words to describe it. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm split on it being in the lede, now that it's in the article as well. On one hand, it gives a lot of context and improves the lede section. On the other, it's not very prominent in the references. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would counter that the SCM appears to be a continuation of the same traditions started by Bates, using many of the techniques first proposed by Bates (and we have an extensive source to show that), therefore its provenance is central and should be mentioned in the lead. As an example, in the Wushu (sport) article, the lead states: "The sport of wushu is both an exhibition and a full-contact sport derived from traditional Chinese martial arts." The origin of any method is central to its description and accurate categorisation, especially when the originating technique is of dubious effectiveness... For another example, see the recent furore over the Biofield energy healing article that was eventually simply merged with energy medicine despite two editors' ultimately futile insistance that it was totally different from all other hand-wavy spiritual healing nonsense. I actually think that the SCM doesn't deserve its own page because of the large similarities with the Bates method. It should be in the "modern variants" section on that page. Famousdog (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Famousdog makes a solid argument for including Bates method in the initial description. I am for now leaning towards keeping this as a separate article to avoid overweighting that section, but a merge discussion might not be a bad idea. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Famousdog's argument for including it in the lede.

SCM has notability of it's own, mostly from all the legal actions. This calls for a separate article. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This should definitely remain as a separate article. There is more detail which could be added regarding the See Clearly Method's development and the legal action, and if it were merged it would just end up being re-split once some more work was done on it. Note that this has been discussed in the past, and I expanded this article a bit because of that. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I think we're back to how to present appropriate information. The solution is not to remove that information. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

PSWG1920's identified two phrases that need work:

• "The method is not considered effective" tagged as vague
• "deprecated" tagged as being unclear

Can we find better wording for both? --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking that the statement that the method is "not supported by basic science" is adequate to show that it is "not considered effective", which is why I had simply removed that part. Of course, even "not supported by basic science" could be clarified a bit, and discussed more in the body of the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the current version of the lead. Hearty slaps on the back everybody. How about: "No research studies were carried out prior to marketing or subsequently, therefore the method lacks an evidence base to support its claims."? That way, you merge the two statements "is not considered effective" and "is not supported by basic science" without having to provide citations for work that hasn't been done! Famousdog (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's good to see this coming together well.

"No research studies were carried out prior to marketing or subsequently, therefore..." gets deeply into OR and NPOV, unless I'm overlooking a source. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference 4 does not support the statement made for it.

"The See Clearly Method has been described as 'amply critiqued and debunked.'" is not supported by reference 4: Raz A, Marinoff GP, Landzberg KS, Guyton DL., Substrates of negative accommodation, Binocul Vis Strabismus Q. 2004;19(2):71-4. It is available on line at http://razlab.mcgill.ca/docs/negativeaccommodation.pdf. Read it and you will see that that phrase is only an incidental remark and that the paper reports on genuine cases of temporary elimination of myopia by behavior of the patient, which it calls "negative accommodation." It is an admission that such a phenomenon exists, which is in full agreement with Bates, and attempts to find an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.62.132 (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have looked at the PDF and I believe the quote is fair. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not. The quote is referencing work by the same author(s) (thus self-referencing), and quotes anecdotal data. No formal studies disproving the theory are quoted, so that isn't a valid statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlonvo (talk • contribs) 13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not our part to decide on whether a particular scholarly article is correct or not. If you can find another scholarly article that claims the See Clearly Method isn't critiqued or debunked, then we can try to judge their relative merits. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not sufficient to say that it doesn't work to prove it, no matter who you are. The authors of the method, which are scholars, say it works, so if the word of a scholar is sufficient, the method is equally not debunked.

Highly biased article

This article is highly biased. There is no impartiality in the tone; statements are quoted, and sites are linked, out of context with no actual relevance to what they are supposed to sustain. Facts are twisted by taking only the [supposedly] bad parts into consideration, without acknowledging positive ones, and trying to cast a bad light on the whole subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlonvo (talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• There is a reason that the article is highly biased; the Method in question is an admitted fraud. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

where is it "admitted"? or have you just made that up? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "admitted fraud" is slightly strong. The company was forced to stop sales, stop making claims of its effectiveness, and make restitution in the Nov. 2006 settlement with the state of Iowa. The Iowa attorney general described the company as using "illegal tactics including exaggerated claims of effectiveness, false implications of scientific validity, and misleading consumer testimonials". The suit against the company was a consumer fraud suit. That's close enough for me. Link here. If you want to try to make a case that the Bates Method or anything based on it, like See Clearly, are anything but pseudoscience, you are going to have a tough time of it. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So the answer to "or have you just made that up?" is "yes". The rest of what you say is irrelevant to that question. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Admitted" is incorrect. "Fraud" is probably defensible. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

1. A sentence from a judge is not even remotely enough to invalidate a theory. The major factor in what a judge decides is highly dependent on the skill of the lawyers involved, and that in turn is dependent on the money spent.

2. Up until a couple of months ago the program was freely available to download. Then someone who clearly doesn't want it around evidently managed to shut the site down. Explain how a free program is 'an admitted fraud'.

3. A Wikipedia article shouldn't EVER be biased, fraud or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlonvo (talk • contribs) 01:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is just a misunderstanding of what NPOV and the related policies/guidelines mean. Articles must be biased in a sense - biased to the sources, and sources aren't treated equally. There's a great deal of information available to help understand NPOV and how it is applied for these very reasons. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"sources aren't treated equally": are you talking about this article or NPOV? I think an article that follows NPOV rules can't be called biased. This article is.