Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Zardoz and Krishnamurti

The paths that the internet can lead you down at random. Searching for information on the Bates Method when I came across this: a book on Amazon written by Aldous Huxley, extolling the efficacy of the Bates method. Huxley is fairly credible source for someone like myself. In the reviews on person mentioned that "Huxley never learned from Krishnamurti" - searching for the name I find that the man was an intriguing philosopher, fairly rare among all the logicians and "students of philosophy."

Between browsing these I watched Zardoz. Incredible movie.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

"However, while Huxley undoubtedly believed his vision had improved, Bennett Cerf thought otherwise. In 1952 Cerf was present when Huxley spoke at a Hollywood banquet, wearing no glasses and apparently reading his paper from the lectern without difficulty:

'Then suddently he faltered—and the truth became obvious. He wasn't reading his address—he had learned it by heart. To refresh his memory he brought it closer and closer to his eyes. When it was only an inch away he still couldn't read it, and had to fish for a magnifying glass in his pocket to make the typing visible to him. It was an agonizing moment.'"

Big Secret said...

I'd more open to the idea that the man was simply 1) lying or 2) mistaken than I am to the idea that Aldous Huxley simply lied for 20 years about the improvement of his vision, and then published a book about it.

I don't know if you've read anything about it.

Anonymous said...

While I applaud an attempt to use Ockham's Razor, I believe it would cut the other way. The Bates Method is not supported except by anecdote. The plural of anecdotes is not data. It is more likely a man is mistaken or taken in by a charlatan than the current understanding of medicine and optometry are flawed. That being said, if substantial empirical evidence is provided and the Bates Method works when tested on multiple occaisons by multiple researchers and subjects, then perhaps it will join convential medicine.

Until then, it, like the other wonderful panaceas peddled by a quack with a website and an author with no medical training, will remain firmly outside the realm of science and medicine.

My recommendation is that instead of "researching" and reading articles on things dredged from the web, you try reading peer-reviewed journals or at the very least professional magazines where the standards are set a bit higher.