Well, based on what I'm reading, you don't seem to accept anecdotes as trustworthy (or maybe I'm misunderstanding). What's the basis for not taking that into consideration?
"This NASA study ain't going to happen, it's trotted out each year whenever someone asks about studies, I was actually waiting for someone to allude to it, and on cue....."
Uhm.. the study was done, and the research claimed it's not necessarily better than regular reading. see here:
http://www.learningstrategies.com/forum/ubb/Forum8/HTML/003666.html
However, the link to the pdf file is gone, you can find it using a P2P client if you search for it. That's how I found it
"C'mon you have to admit this house of cards falls down at the slightest breeze of serious investigation."
How specifically is this a house of cards? Learning strategies corporation has been in existence for 20 years. If I remember correctly, the news channel featuring Paul Scheele (which is available on the website) was an attempt to debunk photoreading, yet the broadcast fell in his favor. Dr. J Michael Bennett was asked to review it, and as you can tell, he ended up joining forces with LSC because it made sense to him.
"Given the massive amounts of questions about every process by people who OWN the latest revision of the book which are posted here, I would have thought it may have covered these areas more, rather than just incrementing the revision number without any important updates."
Again, they're in the process of updating. A bit slow, I might add, but it's something.
"From literally reading every single post on here, over the years from the archive, I've yet to see any proof that PR works, or that it isn't being confused with speed reading."
None of these posts are intended to be evidence, if that's what you're looking for. But the website has plenty of anecdotal evidence.
And it seems most of the people who drop by are those who are seeking to understand how the process works or how to improve one's skills. Those who are pros at PR don't necessarily come here as often and post positive stories all the time. But again it seems none of them would qualify under your conditions.
"The challenge has been put out and refused with ridiculous 'I don't need to demonstrate how good PR is' responses when speed reading VS PR competitions have been raised."
I would like to see that done. It'd be interesting. Perhaps there is something out there. I wouldn't know. But is this a necessary criteria for one to know that it works or not?
"And yet the book is still being sold and the courses stil be charged for, yet apparently PR is not worth defending."
How specifically is it not worth defending? Personally I don't see the need to defend it either. The other day I photoread 2 books and the total time I spent was about 3.5 hours. I found the answers that I wanted, and that would normally take 10 hours of normal reading. I don't have to defend the fact that I saved 6.5 hours.
Sincerely,
-Jason
