The Photoreading debate has become hot and fuelled mainly by the interventions by skeptics who claim that there is no scientific validation of the process. As a scientific mind, I must objectively assert that so far I have not encountered any scientific studies in relation to PR. Scientific validation should base itself on objective data before it is validated. In other words, the claim that photoreading works in scientific discourse must be backed up by research, statistical data and other methods of validation. However, in the behavioral sciences, one can also rely on what is termed qualitative data - that is, data based on individual experience. However, such data is not enough to validate the claims set by PR. In sum, the only proof that PR works must come from essentially rigorous testing and screening using scientific criteria.
That said, I must point out that other than being scientifically inclined, I am also an avid PhotoReader. Some will say that this is a contradiction in terms. However, I've experienced so many benefits since starting the system that I sincerely believe that the system works. However, if one focuses on the implications of occurrences and phenomena that have so far not been sufficiently explained by science - such as dreams and hypnosis - one cannot really assess PR as a physical reality. For example, practitioners of hypnosis, and many patients, would swear that hypnosis works. Yet, the actual working (and validity) of hypnosis has been a controversial topic in psychology.
Thus, I guess that the scientific question underlying PhotoReading still needs to be addressed. However, as pointed out the whole process can only be measured scientifically by assessing its results. This seriously undermines what may be happening in the unconscious (if you believe such an entity exists), and thus, like IQ tests can only give us a taste of the actual effects. All I can say, that it is useless to discuss PhotoReading in relation to scientific validation until this is undertaken. I would be happy if there was such a validation, but right now I'm enjoying its fruits and I don't need a study to verify its success. However, I'm sure that other skeptics would beg to differ. My advice: try it yourself - and then we'll talk about it.
