graphology

But graphology is not recognized as a reliable scientific method, or at least that is what I knew until now, which is why I was so surprised. My question is, does the Rabbi think graphology is a reliable tool? And if not, is there another way to explain?

I didn't understand how, after what you've said, you indicate that you don't believe in graphology.
Of course, there is a statistical possibility that he simply guessed correctly. But your prediction, that the graphologist will identify traits in the specific case to which you were exposed, makes that possibility negligible. If you are rational, you should believe in graphology from now on.

It didn't convince me, because I'm afraid that if I were in your place, I would see the facts differently from your description.
But about two weeks ago, a friend told me about an impossible magic trick he saw. And from its details, it did seem impossible. After a few days, a ”magician” had the opportunity to do the trick for me, and I immediately noticed the trick. A tiny detail that would have seemed unimportant to my friend, was what made everything logical and the trick possible.

It is important to note that if you have been exposed to graphologists many times, and only now someone surprised you, the evidence weakens significantly.
I assumed from your wording that this was a one-time test with a prediction in advance.
If graphologists have been wrong all your life and now you have come across something true… there is a high chance that it is just a successful guess.

David. This is the first time I have encountered graphology. The reason I still don't believe it is because science believes so - what should I do?! That is why I asked here.
The features he took are really rare features. And he said them with great confidence, despite the surprise of the listener.
The facts were later revealed to many independent people. And it is not about matching one fact, but at least six.

I don't have a position because I haven't looked into the matter. Of course, to formulate a position, systematic and controlled research is required.

Roy,
If you saw a miracle with your own eyes, wouldn't you believe that "science doesn't believe that"?

Rabbi Michi,
Of course, a double-blind, controlled study with peer review is needed to receive scientific confirmation.
But do you agree that an individual should also base his beliefs on personal intuitions, private experiences, or anecdotal findings - as long as they have some statistical or rational validity, even if they do not meet the standards of scientific research?
A person who went to test once to see if graphology works, asked one graphologist once and received a result with statistical significance, should he be a scientist and ask himself whether he made a one-in-a-million guess? Should he, in order to formulate a position on himself, have to break into scientific research?

You are undoubtedly right. But in case you are a priori skeptical in light of your experience, I would check more rigorously than anecdotal experience.