The Logical Problem with Bates

The Logical Problem with Bates

This is going to be a long post. I'm sure it will be very boring to some (maybe even to
most) but I thought I'd post it for the people who know that Bates must be wrong but can't
quite put their finger on the reason. I know Zetsu and the other Bates "true believers"
will not agree with this, but be that as it may.

Somewhere in one of Zetsu's Bates posts I read the following words of Bates:

"Imagination is very important to sight. You cannot see something unless you can imagine
it".

Then he proceeds to work on improving his patient's imagination, on the theory that this
will improve their sight.

Now starts the boring part. We have to learn a little about logic. The fundamental
building block in logic is the "if-then" statement:

"If a, then b".

Let's assume that this statement is true. We can form two other statements from this, the
converse and the contrapositive.

Contrapositive: "If not b, then not a"

You negate a and b, and also switch them around.

Now if the original statement is true, then the contrapositive is also true.

Now the converse: "If not a then not b"

You negate a and b without switching them.

Note, NOTHING can be said about the truth or falsehood of the converse based solely upon
the original statement. There is no logical deductive connection between them whatsoever.

So to apply all this, let's cast the above Bates statement into an if-then:

"If you cannot imagine something, then you cannot see it."

OK let's assume that this is true. After all, a few days ago I was stopped at a red
light, and when I looked in the car in front of me there was some kind of funny shape
moving around in it. I couldn't "see" what it was. Then suddenly I realized that it was
a man wearing a hooded sweater, with the hood over his head, and he was leaning over to
get something out of his glove compartment. I couldn't "see" what the shape was until I
was able to imagine that a man in a hoodie would make that shape.

Now let's look at the contrapositive. This is where the trouble starts for Bates:

"If you can see something, then you can imagine it."

In other words, once a sharp image is focused on the retina, and the brain perceives the
shape and color of the image, you will be able to imagine that same shape and color.
Note, if we have accepted the original statement as true then we must also accept this as
true. This is not open for discussion, it is a simple fact of logic.

Now let's move on to the converse. This is where the big trouble really is for Bates:

"If you can imagine something, then you can see it".

This is the premise that the entire Bates system is based on, but note that we CANNOT
derive the truth of this statement from the truth of the original if-then. NOTHING can be
said about whether this statement is true or not. Again this is logic, and it is not open
to discussion.

So Bates built his entire theory on a logical non-sequiteur. This does not mean that he
never had any success; as others here have noted, sometimes eye problems get better on
their own, and sometimes they get worse. No doubt Bates took the credit for the ones that
got better under his care. When someone didn't get better, he simply decided that it was
the patient's fault for not following the method correctly. I even remember one of
Zetsu's posts where Bates came right out and said words to the effect that "not all
patients are able to learn the technique".

So there we have my take on Bates. Hope you liked it. :)

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates

On Apr 4, 2:36 pm, z...@gfred.fde (John Sheridan) wrote:

[snip logical analysis ... with which I wholly concur]

> So Bates built his entire theory on a logical non-sequiteur. This does not mean that he
> never had any success; as others here have noted, sometimes eye problems get better on
> their own, and sometimes they get worse. No doubt Bates took the credit for the ones that
> got better under his care. When someone didn't get better, he simply decided that it was
> the patient's fault for not following the method correctly. I even remember one of
> Zetsu's posts where Bates came right out and said words to the effect that "not all
> patients are able to learn the technique".

Bingo.

Otis has a nephew, Keith, and a niece, Joy.

Otis induced their mother to allow him to "push" plus lenses on them
both.

Keith, we're told, sees 20/20 now. Otis trots this out as a huge
success story for his method.

Joy, however, is the proverbial bastard stepchild that nobody ever
talks about -- that is until I found a post where she explained that
she is now nearsighted and has a restricted driver's license.

I'm sure Otis would say that she's intellectually stunted, didn't
understand the concept, or something similar.

Heaven forbid he should draw ANY other conclusion.

Ditto Bates: absolutely no evidence that the method works any better
than the control group -- that group of individuals who do NOT use the
test "vision improvement" methods.

Faith comes in where evidence, science, reason, and logic depart.

I see you've met Otis, Jason, and Zetsu ;-)

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates


Again as per the Dr. Prentice report -- true PREVENTION requires
rather intense
motivation and insight.

Brooks does not know the people involved and has no right to make ANY
STATEMENT
ABOUT THEM.

It is their business -- plain and simple.

I consider PREVENTING a negative refractive STATE for the dynamic eye
difficult -- but POSSIBLE.

But it depends on the insights (as per the Prentice statment) and a
strong goal-oriented approach.

If you studied the EARLY Bates, then he was ONLY advocating prevention
(for 10 years,
from 1903 to 1913). He ONLY advocated that the kids monitor their
Snellen -- if it
was better-than 20/70, and they could function with no minus lens.

His satement of success (clearing to normal) can be read by anyone.

But like "keeping the weight off", it is up to the person himself to
find
the internal motivation to do it.

I think that "later" Bates over-claimed what was possible, i.e.,
PERFECT vision with NO GLASSES. Obviously that
statement "sells" books and the like, but I think that
makes matters difficult.

But let us sing the praise of the minus lens.

It is easy.

You don't have to "argue" about it.

It is what the public expects.

You don't have to worry about the "motivation" or intelligence
of the person you talk to.

You do not have to "worry" about a Brooks-like person posting
"charges" to the ODs society that you are doing it "wrong" -- by
his "standards". (Further, if you are an OD, you can expect
that all other "majoirty-opinion" ODs will "pile on" to
a "charge" by a Brooks-like "filing".

For that reason alone -- we can NOT expect any preventive
help from an OD. So let us not kid ourself on that score.

So yes, for the public walking in off the street -- there
is ONLY ONE METHOD THAT WORKS.

And that is indeed the minus lens -- and that
is why it will continue as "standard". The plus
simply will never "fit" into that scenario.

So again, OBJECTION to the minus lens is indeed
the second-opinion.

As W. F. Buckley said, let us learn to disagree -- without
being disagreeable.

Enjoy,





On Apr 4, 7:22 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2:36 pm, z...@gfred.fde (John Sheridan) wrote:
>
> [snip logical analysis ... with which I wholly concur]
>
> > So Bates built his entire theory on a logical non-sequiteur.  This does not mean that he
> > never had any success; as others here have noted, sometimes eye problems get better on
> > their own, and sometimes they get worse.  No doubt Bates took the credit for the ones that
> > got better under his care.  When someone didn't get better, he simply decided that it was
> > the patient's fault for not following the method correctly.  I even remember one of
> > Zetsu's posts where Bates came right out and said words to the effect that "not all
> > patients are able to learn the technique".
>
> Bingo.
>
> Otis has a nephew, Keith, and a niece, Joy.
>
> Otis induced their mother to allow him to "push" plus lenses on them
> both.
>
> Keith, we're told, sees 20/20 now.  Otis trots this out as a huge
> success story for his method.
>
> Joy, however, is the proverbial bastard stepchild that nobody ever
> talks about -- that is until I found a post where she explained that
> she is now nearsighted and has a restricted driver's license.
>
> I'm sure Otis would say that she's intellectually stunted, didn't
> understand the concept, or something similar.
>
> Heaven forbid he should draw ANY other conclusion.
>
> Ditto Bates: absolutely no evidence that the method works any better
> than the control group -- that group of individuals who do NOT use the
> test "vision improvement" methods.
>
> Faith comes in where evidence, science, reason, and logic depart.
>
> I see you've met Otis, Jason, and Zetsu ;-)

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates


<otisbrown@embarqmail,com > wrote

> Again as per the Dr. Prentice report -- true PREVENTION
> requires rather intense motivation and insight.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

> I consider PREVENTING a negative refractive STATE for the
> dynamic eye difficult -- but POSSIBLE.

Maybe someday, someone will demonstrate it with controlled group
comparisons.

Until then, you can continue to believe several impossible things before
breakfast.

-MT

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates

On Apr 4, 6:16 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:

> Brooks does not know the people involved and has no right to make ANY
> STATEMENT
> ABOUT THEM.

You brought them up ... over and over and over and over.

I'm simply citing THEIR words and yours about them.

Maybe ... if you don't like that ... you'll stop introducing
(primarily one of) them as "support" for some sort of hair-brained
theory?

Maybe.

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates


Dear Friend,

I am certain the Bates was dedicated to his desire to PREVENT entry
into a negative refractive STATE for the eye.

But you do not need logic to figure out the problem.

I do not have the exact quote -- but he said something like this:

If every child can not be cured -- then I am simply wrong.

I regret it -- if he said it. He should know better than
to make a statement like that.

Maybe someone can find the exact quote.

Just my second opinion,

Enjoy!



On Apr 4, 5:36 pm, z...@gfred.fde (John Sheridan) wrote:
> This is going to be a long post.  I'm sure it will be very boring to some (maybe even to
> most) but I thought I'd post it for the people who know that Bates must be wrong but can't
> quite put their finger on the reason.  I know Zetsu and the other Bates "true believers"
> will not agree with this, but be that as it may.
>
> Somewhere in one of Zetsu's Bates posts I read the following words of Bates:
>
> "Imagination is very important to sight.  You cannot see something unless you can imagine
> it".
>
> Then he proceeds to work on improving his patient's imagination, on the theory that this
> will improve their sight.
>
> Now starts the boring part.  We have to learn a little about logic.  The fundamental
> building block in logic is the "if-then" statement:
>
> "If a, then b".
>
> Let's assume that this statement is true.  We can form two other statements from this, the
> converse and the contrapositive.
>
> Contrapositive:  "If not b, then not a"
>
> You negate a and b, and also switch them around.
>
> Now if the original statement is true, then the contrapositive is also true.
>
> Now the converse:  "If not a then not b"
>
> You negate a and b without switching them.
>
> Note, NOTHING can be said about the truth or falsehood of the converse based solely upon
> the original statement.  There is no logical deductive connection between them whatsoever.
>
> So to apply all this, let's cast the above Bates statement into an if-then:
>
> "If you cannot imagine something, then you cannot see it."
>
> OK let's assume that this is true.  After all, a few days ago I was stopped at a red
> light, and when I looked in the car in front of me there was some kind of funny shape
> moving around in it.  I couldn't "see" what it was.  Then suddenly I realized that it was
> a man wearing a hooded sweater, with the hood over his head, and he was leaning over to
> get something out of his glove compartment.  I couldn't "see" what the shape was until I
> was able to imagine that a man in a hoodie would make that shape.
>
> Now let's look at the contrapositive.  This is where the trouble starts for Bates:
>
> "If you can see something, then you can imagine it."
>
> In other words, once a sharp image is focused on the retina, and the brain perceives the
> shape and color of the image, you will be able to imagine that same shape and color.
> Note, if we have accepted the original statement as true then we must also accept this as
> true.  This is not open for discussion, it is a simple fact of logic.
>
> Now let's move on to the converse.  This is where the big trouble really is for Bates:
>
> "If you can imagine something, then you can see it".
>
> This is the premise that the entire Bates system is based on, but note that we CANNOT
> derive the truth of this statement from the truth of the original if-then.  NOTHING can be
> said about whether this statement is true or not.  Again this is logic, and it is not open
> to discussion.
>
> So Bates built his entire theory on a logical non-sequiteur.  This does not mean that he
> never had any success; as others here have noted, sometimes eye problems get better on
> their own, and sometimes they get worse.  No doubt Bates took the credit for the ones that
> got better under his care.  When someone didn't get better, he simply decided that it was
> the patient's fault for not following the method correctly.  I even remember one of
> Zetsu's posts where Bates came right out and said words to the effect that "not all
> patients are able to learn the technique".
>
> So there we have my take on Bates.  Hope you liked it.  :)

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates

On Apr 5, 3:01 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:
> Dear Friend,
>
> I am certain the Bates was dedicated to his desire to PREVENT entry
> into a negative refractive STATE for the eye.
>
> But you do not need logic to figure out the problem.
>
> I do not have the exact quote -- but he said something like this:
>
> If every child can not be cured -- then I am simply wrong.
>
> I regret it -- if he said it. He should know better than
> to make a statement like that.

But you're not credible.

Not at all.

You're the one who touted a nephew as a success story, but withheld
the information about your niece, treated identically, who is
nearsighted and has a restricted driver's license.

That's dishonesty of the worst kind.

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates


<otisbrown@embarqmail,com > wrote

>I am certain the Bates was dedicated to his desire to PREVENT
> entry into a negative refractive STATE for the eye.

Oh, well, if you're _certain_ then it probably doesn't matter that the vast
majority of his book pertained to _curing_ eye problems.

If you're _certain_ then it isn't important that he was most emphatic about
_removing_ glasses. As if those who were wearing glasses already had
"perfect sight" and were just trying to preserve it?

> But you do not need logic to figure out the problem.

Then you should do quite well.

> Maybe someone can find the exact quote.

While we're at it, maybe someone can find where he said anything about
"entering into a negative refractive STATE."

-MT

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates

John,

Your reasoning is based on the incorrect assumption that there is no
evidence to support Dr. Bates' claim that memory, imagination, and
sight are all correlated. (That is, when one is perfect all are
perfect; when one is imperfect all are imperfect.) The fact is that
this correlation has been demonstrated repeatedly by simultaneous
retinoscopy, and no exceptions were found. In other words, it was
proven by Dr. Bates.

You would realize this if you read most of what Dr. Bates published,
like I have. Before arguing that Dr. Bates was wrong, you should read
more of his book and Better Eyesight magazines. But you might not want
to do that, because if you did then you would realize that every
statement he uttered was built up completely from fact. However, if
you want to be a mature reasoner then you should take my advice.

I'm starting to notice that all the Bates naysayers simply have not
read enough Bates to realize the fact that he must be right...

Jason

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates


"Jason Sperry" <jasonsperry13@gmail,com > wrote

> Your reasoning is based on the incorrect assumption that there is no
> evidence to support Dr. Bates' claim that memory, imagination, and
> sight are all correlated.

My mother had very little working memory when she died. Her vision was just
fine. You are gullible.

> (That is, when one is perfect all are
> perfect; when one is imperfect all are imperfect.) The fact is that
> this correlation has been demonstrated repeatedly by simultaneous
> retinoscopy, and no exceptions were found. In other words, it was
> proven by Dr. Bates.

If you actually did some retinoscopy you might realize how stupid this is.
You are gullible.

> You would realize this if you read most of what Dr. Bates published,
> like I have.

So tell us what tests Dr. Bates used to measure "perfect memory" and
"perfect imagination." You are gullible.

> Before arguing that Dr. Bates was wrong, you should read
> more of his book and Better Eyesight magazines.

Before arguing he was right, you should find out what retinoscopy measures.
You are gullible.

> But you might not want
> to do that, because if you did then you would realize that every
> statement he uttered was built up completely from fact.

Like "sudden noise causes poor eyesight?" You are gullible.

> However, if
> you want to be a mature reasoner then you should take my advice.

You are gullible and do not recognize "mature reasoning" when it slaps you.

> I'm starting to notice that all the Bates naysayers simply have not
> read enough Bates to realize the fact that he must be right...

I'm starting to think none of the Bates proponents have graduated from high
school.

-MT

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates

Mike,

> > Your reasoning is based on the incorrect assumption that there is no
> > evidence to support Dr. Bates' claim that memory, imagination, and
> > sight are all correlated.
>
> My mother had very little working memory when she died. Her vision was just
> fine. You are gullible.

Your mother did not have normal vision when her memory failed her. I
am not gullible.

> > (That is, when one is perfect all are
> > perfect; when one is imperfect all are imperfect.) The fact is that
> > this correlation has been demonstrated repeatedly by simultaneous
> > retinoscopy, and no exceptions were found. In other words, it was
> > proven by Dr. Bates.
>
> If you actually did some retinoscopy you might realize how stupid this is.
> You are gullible.

Really? You tried it while asking your patients the same questions as
Dr. Bates? If so, what were your observations?

I will do some retinoscopy when I get a retinoscope and replicate what
Dr. Bates did.

I'm not gullible!

> > You would realize this if you read most of what Dr. Bates published,
> > like I have.
>
> So tell us what tests Dr. Bates used to measure "perfect memory" and
> "perfect imagination." You are gullible.

I will later...I'm kind of tired now.

I thought you had the original 1920 Bates book! (I do, too! Also I
just ordered an original issue of one of his magazines as well!
Yeah...I guess I'm a little obsessed, lol!) Anyway, look up the
chapter called "Memory As an Aid to Vision." If there seems to be
something that isn't proven then read the chapters leading up to that
chapter and you will see how he carefully built up from the bare
facts. Tell me exactly where you think he went wrong.

But beware because I'm not gullible!

> > Before arguing that Dr. Bates was wrong, you should read
> > more of his book and Better Eyesight magazines.
>
> Before arguing he was right, you should find out what retinoscopy measures.
> You are gullible.

I already did, long ago. Retinoscopy measures the eye's refractive
state. It has something to do with shining a light into an eye and
watching some shadow or reflection on the back of the eyeball, or
something like that.

Do you have a problem with the retinoscope Dr. Bates used? Do you
think he used witchcraft on it or something? He could have turned it
into a magic wand that cures all eye defects when the light hits the
patients eyes...just kidding lol.

I'm not gullible, btw.

> > But you might not want
> > to do that, because if you did then you would realize that every
> > statement he uttered was built up completely from fact.
>
> Like "sudden noise causes poor eyesight?" You are gullible.

Yes, Bates was right when he said that. (I am not gullible.) Did you
try that on anybody with normal eyes, while testing their sight
OBJECTIVELY (with simultaneous retinoscopy)?

> > However, if
> > you want to be a mature reasoner then you should take my advice.
>
> You are gullible and do not recognize "mature reasoning" when it slaps you.

Actually I'm taking a mature reasoning course in college right now
(it's an English class focusing on argument and persuasion). We get to
pick a single topic which all of our essays will be about, and I'm
selecting the Bates method as my topic!

So watch out!

> > I'm starting to notice that all the Bates naysayers simply have not
> > read enough Bates to realize the fact that he must be right...
>
> I'm starting to think none of the Bates proponents have graduated from high
> school.

You're funny. In that case Dr. Bates himself would've had to have been
pretty stupid if he only attracted retarded believers, but in fact he
was a very well-respected and intelligent ophthalmologist.

Jason

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates

Whoops, forgot to mention that I'M NOT GULLIBLE.

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates


"Jason Sperry" <jasonsperry13@gmail,com > wrote

> Whoops, forgot to mention that I'M NOT GULLIBLE.

We have your word on that, so it must be true.

-MT

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates

On Apr 6, 6:34 am, Jason Sperry <jasonsperr...@gmail,com > wrote:
> Mike,
>
> > > Your reasoning is based on the incorrect assumption that there is no
> > > evidence to support Dr. Bates' claim that memory, imagination, and
> > > sight are all correlated.
>
> > My mother had very little working memory when she died. Her vision was just
> > fine. You are gullible.
>
> Your mother did not have normal vision when her memory failed her.

Jason,

Do you realize/care what an absolute idiot you look like when you post
this???

Mike's an eye doctor, for f**k's sake, and this was HIS MOTHER we're
talking about.

You, Atchoo, and Otis are absolute idiots this way. Something doesn't
fit YOUR pathologically-embraced theory, so it simply MUST be untrue??

You three deserve each other.

You'll never HELP anybody. Let's just hope that you never HURT
anybody.

Otis already has.

Re: The Logical Problem with Bates

On Apr 6, 8:22 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 6, 6:34 am, Jason Sperry <jasonsperr...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > Mike,
>
> > > > Your reasoning is based on the incorrect assumption that there is no
> > > > evidence to support Dr. Bates' claim that memory, imagination, and
> > > > sight are all correlated.
>
> > > My mother had very little working memory when she died. Her vision was just
> > > fine. You are gullible.
>
> > Your mother did not have normal vision when her memory failed her.
>
> Jason,
>
> Do you realize/care what an absolute idiot you look like when you post
> this???
>
> Mike's an eye doctor, for f**k's sake, and this was HIS MOTHER we're
> talking about.
>
> You, Atchoo, and Otis are absolute idiots this way.  Something doesn't
> fit YOUR pathologically-embraced theory, so it simply MUST be untrue??
>
> You three deserve each other.
>
> You'll never HELP anybody.  Let's just hope that you never HURT
> anybody.
>
> Otis already has.

Neil,

For the record, I really don't give a crap that I look like an
"absolute idiot" to you. And as for Mike being an eye doctor, I have
no clue what your problem is. I don't think I was disrespectful or
anything. I definitely didn't try looking like an idiot. I found
abundant proof that vision and memory are always identical, so I will
state the facts as I learned them, while learning and considering
people's advice but certainly not being gullible and taking what they
say as gospel, whether they are an eye doctor or not. What part of "I
am not gullible" don't you understand?

Also for the record, I'm not on here to hurt anybody.

Jason