Talk:Pinhole glasses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pinhole glasses article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is part of the WikiProject Ophthalmology, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to ophthalmology on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page.

Contents 1 Comment 2 Category 2.1 2 separate claims 3 Bates method? 3.1 Yes, Bates Method 4 Useful ref 5 POV

[edit] Comment

I added the category of 'quackery' to the article, as it's all I could find that it fitted into neatly. It might fit into 'Category:Alternative medical treatments derived from western culture' too. --Randolph 02:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category

I'm not sure "Quackery" is very appropriate. Simply lacking "sufficient scientific evidence" (whose substantiation has been questioned at various times by the US courts) does not qualify something to be a "quackery". The term in itself is derogative and does not apply to this particular article. Simple science that any fifth grade student could understand explains how this is a viable alternative (and possible substitute) to prescription eyeglasses priced two to ten times higher. I've also heard the "practicing medicine in your home" arguments, but does that make OTC medications such as aspirin or acetemenaphin a "quackery"? Cypherjitsu 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It should not be quackery. I know people that use these. It may not be the same calibre as Glasses but they are useful. --Jspr (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2 separate claims

There are two separate claims

(1) Pinholes can replace prescription glasses.

This is not disputed. Basic camera optics will tell you that reducing aperture size will increase depth of field, causing more objects to come into focus

(2) Pinholes can improve eyesight

This is disputed, related to the dispute over the validity of the Bates Method.

Yuenkitmun (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bates method?

Why is there a link to the Bates method article in the See also section? René van Buuren 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because the Bates method is another "vision improvement" system of dubious efficacy and provinence. Famousdog 14:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, Bates Method

Pinholes are related to Bates because pinholes train your eyes to see clearly through one hole at a time (otherwise you see multiple images, your eye/brain will adjust to see clearly i.e. ignore other holes and see through one hole at a time - unfortunately I do not have references for this).

This is consistent with Bates theory e.g. reading small font text to train eyes to focus on only one small point at a time.

Yuenkitmun (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful ref

• http://www.optometrists.asn.au/eyevision/consumers/pinholes

--Ronz (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1. S. Wittenberg, “Pinhole eyewear systems: a special report.,” J Am Optom Assoc 64, no. 2 (1993): 112-6.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8436795

--Darked (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I've started some pov cleanup. The article history and references shows a overwhelming bias to those who promote such glasses. Most of the references were from unreliable sources that fail WP:SELFPUB, WP:EL, WP:SPAM. I've removed the sources and corresponding information, moving the one good source to the section above. --Ronz (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)