Thanks for the link.
I'm a budding psychology student at uni, and I do understand that many studies have limitations and biases. It is usually expected for a researcher to point out their own limitations.
On the flipside, I have learnt to be a bit more sceptical when claims are not backed by proper scientific research. Why does Paul not fund some studies to backup the claims of photoreading?
As the NASA research was largely a case of systematic bias, can you offer research or studies that support Paul scheele that are not also biased on his side (ie coming from within the company)?
