Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Are there unscrupulous debunkers and dimwits?

  1. Apr 6, 2004 #1
    There's too many people who have been taught not to like reading or thinking for themselves and to listen to authority. And since people are in love with the finality of numbers, here are some you can find by people trying to convince others for fun or to make them buy products that I'll use for example. 1 out of 7 Japanese households use magnetics for therapy. A poll claims 3.7 million Americans have been abducted. Bates Method for vision improvement has been around for 80 years and benefited hundreds of thousands of people's eyesights. And should I want to try proving any of this crap I have to realize that the vast majority of people are not open to any new ideas and if I try explaining anything they'll think I'm patronizing them. They prefer to have information forced into them while they resist, just like in school. And so I cuss. Magnetic therapy has been around for much longer than that freaking Alex Chiu guy. There are books written about it, people who practice it for a living, and the Kroger near me is introducing it as magnetic shoe insoles. And people don't hear about it because the people that do are indifferent to others. The stupid alien poll should mean something to us, it should make us wonder at least. But should I tell it to a friend as a tidbit for thought and declaration of my stupidity, he doesn't think why. He's not going to think about anything beyond "That's funny." No thinking about how they did the poll, hallucinations from sniffing glue, the favorite colors of the supposed abductees. And should the words come to him he'll try to explain it away as not true and believe it. Then Bates Method is something that a lot of websites that make no money are about. I've read a rather large textbook size book called "Relearning to See" on the Bates Method by Thomas Quackenbush, heard and read a lot of orthodox optometry rhetorics, and I blame everyone for my misery. The bad people make money off of our stupidity. The stupid feel better by making others stupid. The people who have been lucky enough to read mass produced copies of useful books are too greedy to make everyone know about it. And people everywhere starves. But because I consider all of you friends I'll attach a link to an online version of William H. Bates' book "Perfect Eyesight Without Glasses".


    Then you can compare it to a really vacuous debunking.


    This is the Bates Method book I read and it has good reviews.

  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 6, 2004 #2
    From what I gathered from your post you seem to be inflicted with eyesight problems yourself, but you did not say if you tried the Bates method in Quackenbush's book on yourself and if it worked or not.

    EDIT: bit off topic but this reminds me of the Atkins diet what ever happened to that anyways
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2004
  4. Apr 6, 2004 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hey username, I haven't seen you in a while.

    As for Atkins, it seems like half of the US is on it right now. Since the whole no-carb thing got started it has been a free-for-all. The orange juice companies have been running for cover; sales are way down. Personally, I am on a diet of mad cow burgers and sugar. :biggrin:

    As for the original topic, thanks for the information Esperanto.
  5. Apr 6, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I've heard that couples in Japan who are considering marriage can get quite concerned over one another's blood type. Is there very good scientific evidence for that being a legitimate concern? Is there some medical problem that can arise when a fetus is one blood type, and the mother is some certain blood type? Regardless of this, I gather that some of the folks there believe blood type has something to do with personality or character or something. :confused:
  6. Apr 6, 2004 #5
  7. Apr 7, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor


    Yeah, that is sort of how I remember someone telling it. I have no idea whether it is something that really has to be worried about that much.
  8. Apr 7, 2004 #7
    Jebus christ hehe, I thought the topic didn't get posted. Cool, lol. Yeah, I've used the Bates method and it works for me and my dad. I read and started using what I learned from "Relearning to See" around three months ago, and I went from being able to read 200 font from 10 feet away to 200 font from 20 feet. My eyesight went from better than 20/10 to 10/200 in less than 5 years of really bad habits I'm still unlearning. No more headaches, and pedestrians agree I am a more interesting driver without glasses. I'm going to read Bates' own book to try figuring out why quackwatch is so weird about it. If you're interested in Bates Method you should really read "Relearning to See" instead of "Perfect Eyesight Without Glasses", it has a lot of very useful illustrations. I used the snellen cards or distance eye chart that came with the 500 page textbooksize book.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook