“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Suggestions are usually statements directed toward a particular action or hypothesis. To a large extent, suggestions are tied into conscious thought processes, following the dictates of reason. For example: “If thus and thus be so, then thus and thus must follow.” There is no magic connected with suggestions — but repeated often enough, and believed in fervently, such suggestions do indeed take on a deeply habitual nature. They are no longer examined, but taken for literal truth.

These are all statements leading toward a certain hypothesis. Again, the problem is that often the hypotheses remain unquestioned. You end up with structured beliefs unexamined, that are then automatically acted upon.

[...] All of this involves direct experience—episodes, encountered by individuals, [that are] highly suggestive of the after death hypothesis; but the hypothesis is never taken seriously by your established sciences. [...]

[...] It deals with problem-solving — it forms an hypothesis, and then seeks to prove it by trial and error.

The theory of evolution represents a magnetic organizing suggestive hypothesis. [...] Under its banner of suggestion, however, the great parade of men and other living creatures are observed so that the hypothesis brings about its own hypnotic focus—so that creatures, man, and indeed the universe itself, seem to behave in certain highly ritualized fashions. [...]

The theory, then, is a way of organizing experience, a suggestive hypothesis. [...]

[...] Later, I will have some things to say about what I will call “the daily hypothesis,” for each person has such a daily hypothesis — one that might be quite different for, say, Friday than it is for Monday. [...]

[...] You can’t prove that coincidence is or isn’t responsible for such things, but you could consider the unofficial hypothesis as a possibility. [...]

[...] It only sets up an hypothesis, which collects about it all data that agree, and again ignores what does not fit. [...]

[...] A good try (with humor), but representative of psychology’s best attempt to make sense of a poor hypothesis.

[...] If a hypothesis is “proven true,” then it cannot be proven false — or, of course, it was never true to begin with.

One and one makes nothing.
Arithmetic destroys us all.
Subtraction is the answer
To our hypothesis.

[...] You have, after all, “the physical evidence” to support that hypothesis. [...]

[...] No matter how beautifully man works out a hypothesis or theory, he still does so without any thought of consciousness coming first. [...]

[...] The scientists involved hope the new hypothesis will survive further tests and become “fact,” thus giving clues to the riddles of origins and evolution. [...]

However, Jane and I believe that at most the “facts of evolution” make up a working hypothesis — or unproven proposition — only, for many of evolution’s tenets, especially those involving energy/entropy (see Note 6), are open to serious challenge. [...]

[...] Traditionally we’ve cast that feeling or knowledge in religious terms, for want of a better framework, but I think that more and more now the search is also on within science for a theory—even a hypothesis—that will lock up our often subjective variables into what might be called a more human equivalent of the still-sought-for unified theory in physics. [...]

This duality is so artificial that it is amazing that your scientists have not stumbled upon the false hypothesis behind it.

This is an interesting hypothesis. [...]