I think that you misunderstand my position, Alex.(Yes, I understand that this thread was partially in jest but I feel that it is meaningfull nonetheless). I don't disagree that we learn by doing, and experience. You seem to have a flawed conception of what is meant by using the word "science" or "scientific". The Scientific Method relies on establishing observations that are repeatable- by anyone- and on submitting a given phenomena to a variety of controlled tests, this is to establish as full an understanding of a given phenomena as our senses, acted upon by certain logical patterns-of-thought and metaphysical presuppositions, can provide.
I think that Photo-Reading is undoubtably a skill, as you say, that is learnt by doing. This doesn't make it unscientific. In fact, science needs experience and observations to build upon--this aspect is so often misunderstood and misapplied. I'm not criticizing anyone for taking the jump and trying PRing. For that matter, I can too prove to you, most scientifically, that you can learn. I understand that you have to deal with a lot of skepticism-often unfounded- in the world, and, more specifically, in PRing discussions. All I want you to do is to keep in mind the larger considerations of the subconscious mind, and to recognize the need for carefully-designed studies in evaluating PRing as a valid educational tool. Everyone who has benefitted from using PRing should agree with this. Doing such studies, and, on a personal level, experimenting with PRing in a way which keeps science in mind will only improve the chances that more people will gain access to this tool.
The mind is an incredibly complex process.
With regards,
K.Olafsson
