Talk:The Art of Seeing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think it may be best to give balanced reporting of both sides, and to try to be as non POV as possible.
The fact that Huxley's vision was not normal in 1952, or that he may have had a relapse, may not be conclusive proof that his vision did not benefit at all. Many stroke victims, for example, practice physiotherapy, sometimes for long periods. It is generally accepted that some do benefit from their physiotherapy, though many, if not most, remain disabled for life, particularly if they had suffered a major stroke.
http://www.directionjournal.com/vision/gauld.html
See also
http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.php?topic=52.0
It is also quite possible for some to benefit from a treatment, while others do not; while some of the latter, may nevertheless fake improvement.
Roo60 00:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think you need to include some evidence for the assertation that he suffered a relapse in his vision. Otherwise its just supposition. Famousdog 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)