"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to perceive."
                                 Bill D- 2004
(it just came to me as I reached for the keyboard..)


Amos...it is possible to stretch language and definitions until almost anything can be posited about our conceptual framework. Yes, it could be that my ""try to see it but see it not" approach to healing and spirituality." is a form of self-fulfilling hypothesis, in the sense that, if I do not "open myself" and try to get it, I probably will not....but doesn't that dilute the very notion of what a "self-fulfilling hypothesis" was meant to convey?

I always understood it to refer to the process of unconciously distorting your analysis by the very way in which you frame the question.....'finding of bad reasons for what you already accept', to paraphrase an old definition of Theology....but you seem to wish to expand it to include any position of skepticism. There must be a way to carefully explore a concept, position, hypothesis...etc. that avoids subjectivity...or at least builds in ways to filter most subjectivity.
   This is getting hard to express quickly, but I guess what I'm saying is that I'd think that is what the "Scientific Method" is supposed to DO! Not every 'doubt', (nor every 'belief') is self-fulfilling, but if we have no way to point at those which are, without having the very pointing turned back on us, how can the discussion mean much?