GeorgeA,
Mgrego2 - I'll try to respond with fax idea tomorrow. GeorgeA, DMAtech is correct, I am suggesting isolating one part of the visual system (eyes) to see it's capabilities without having to examine the whole visual system. This is a common method in science because it elimates many factors and cuts down the complexity. After the eye is proven/disproven to have the capabilities of seeing letters clearly enough farther away from the center, investigators could move on from there.
GeorgeA wrote:
<<<<<Finally, you're in a difficult logical situation: you've essentially set out to prove a negative (photereading can't work as advertised). Most investigators would probably start with an observed instance and try and design a trial that tests why and how the process does seem to work.>>>>>>
It's true that I am very skeptical on the *photoreading step* of the 5 different steps itself, not the entire process. I have not seen it work (note: I have no contact with PRers, tried it myself though, so seeing it work would be a limited oppurtunity for me) but the scientific trials I have seen were not conducted as thoroughly enough to entrench me for my lifetime, but were enough to give me what I think is a reasonable opinion for the time being. I do not think first name only testimonials are evidence it works (I would go the other way too, first name only testimonials against it would not be evidence it doesn't work). Scientific studies would be more solid.
I am suggesting trials to see if it's first physically possible.
GeorgeA wrote:
<<<<<<James Randi would probably try to duplicate the performance by some covert means, thereby exposing the "trick." That could be one approach.>>>>>>>
I admire James Randi, he was a magician so he has experience tricking people (which they pay for when going to a magic show). He uses his knowlegde to educate many people how TV psychics are able to do seemingly astounding readings. He also shows the tricks behind other 'paranormal'(which means "beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation" at dictionary.com) powers/events. He is also amusing. Which performance are you referring to though?
GeorgeA
<<<<< At some point, Occam's Razor is in play, though. The simplest answer is perhaps the best: maybe the system just works.>>>>>
Occams razor mean different things to different people I suppose. It is a philosophy after all. Occams razor states: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity."
To me it means: Don't make any more assumptions than you have to. Example: Some people say aliens landed here thousands of years ago, otherwise man would not have been able to know so much math, art, etc. early on by themselves and do things like build the pyramids. I would say because of occam's razor there is no need to make such an assumption because it isn't needed to explain so earlier people's achievements. (this example taken from skepdic.com entry of occams razor)Occam's razor is also good for math, the less assumptions (axioms) we start out with, the more stable the foundation.
For example, I could possibly use (what I see as)occam's razor with photoreading: I don't need to assume the "photoreading" step works or use it to achieve their claim of going through materials 3 times fasters with the system. I could simply point out that step one focuses you to focus on your task (which many people probaly don't do otherwise), and step 5 rapid reading will get you through the material 3x faster as you are not stopping or backing up. Also things things that would speed up reading would be skipping 'filler' and having a purpose (which many people do not have when reading which is also a good suggestion). This is only an example though, how I might apply occams razor the other way, though if I had more time I could think up of more inventive ways to do it.
[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited March 25, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited March 25, 2001).]
