|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
At 10:15 AM 4/27/98 PDT, you wrote:
>
>My view would be if I cannot at least remove subjectivity for testing
>purposes, and code the system as a set of rules, then I cannot be
>convinced the system will work for me. I couldn't trade it because I
>need quantitative evidence to convince me it works. There are too many
>"fluffy views" and vague promises around and not enough "hard evidence".
>
>Harold
>
This was the point that I was trying to make. I am not trying to
criticize the mystics and astrologers, just asking for evidence. And
although the search for hard facts can turn into a religious zealot's quest
as easily as any other compulsion, looking for evidence is one good way to
separate what is real and effective from what is vague, elusive and
sometines downright deceptive. If something is real there must be a way to
verify it with evidence. If there is no strong and clear evidence then it
is highly questionable. This is my view so far of financial astrology -
that it is highly questionable. I'd be happy to see rigorous testing to
disprove my view. Not arguments for the case, but evidence.
There is so much bunk being sold as means for trading, and I have been
naively taken in by so much of it in the past as have many others, that I
have become very skeptical of all claims in this field. If you can't give
evidence you may just be giving bunk (not necessarily, but to my knowledge
you haven't shown me otherwise.)
David Cicia
|