Hello d5wstat,
If you expected a straight answer, you probaly came to the wrong place. Most answers to legitimate questions concerning the validity of the photoreading step/sytem here seem to be answered only by people totally stoned or something. They either answer that you must just have FAITH, or give a type of convoluted answer to confuse the issue - usually attacking the sciences somehow to make photoreading look good or somehow scientific related in comparison. Not that science or scientists are perfect, but I believe that they are overall objective and have tests, data to back it up.
I have no idea what Raanan is trying to say with the math/science analogy. But where did he get these success rates from? Testimonials, anecdotes, or scientific tests? And the demostrations in front of live audience, infomercials, radio shows - that is proof? These things are easily rigged. I wouldn't accept anything less than independent published results. d5wstat, I have never seen independent scientific results supporting photoreading though I have looked. I wish you luck though, finding any.
