home
site map
 

We offer a number of suggestions that any interested party might pursue in hopes of validating Theomatics. From what we have observed firsthand in our analysis of this phenomenon, we do not personally feel it worthwhile to pursue such effort. However, others may find the suggestions helpful and wish to explore them. If any subsequent work in any of these directions yields promising results, we would be more than interested in knowing about them.

1. The author hints at the fact that the quality of the hits obtained in Theomatic studies are of a higher quality than one would expect from a random environment. The author often claims that successful phrases appear to be less awkward and more explicitly directed at certain aspects of the subject than random phrases would tend to be. This is, of course, a subjective evaluation that is difficult to employ with a skeptic, even though it may well be that the hits themselves can be classified as unusual in some way.
   
   In order to explore this aspect of Theomatics, a phrase definition must be developed, explicitly defined and consistently employed that produces phrases of "higher quality." What is desired is an objective definition that maintains a large proportion of hits while reducing the size of the sample significantly. In any subsequent study, this should be attempted. Such results could be defended quite easily if the phrase definition were employed consistently.
    
2. One might invert the definition of Theomatics, looking for Theomatic subjects instead of for Theomatic factors. For example, if all of the phrases in the Bible that were divisible by the factor 153 were located, and a list of all possible themes or subjects associated with any of these phrases was also compiled, and it was found that a larger proportion of the phrases divisible by the factor 153 related to the subject of Fish than to any other subject... this would certainly be of interest.
   
   Essentially, this is the inverse of the current definition of Theomatics and just as valid. One would have to be careful to decouple the value of the subject itself from the value of the associated factor (e.g if the word for Fish was itself divisible by 153 this would have to be accommodated in the analysis) but this could be done rather easily by simply omitting the reference word from the phrase when there is such a correlation.

home