|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
At 12:11 AM 4/27/98 +0600, David Cicia wrote:
>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
>
Harold, David and All:
The most telling phrasing in the last exchange on this, to me, is:
">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."
OF COURSE! None of us should lower our standards. Holding to that level
of evidence should be praised, not derided. Holding those kind of standards
does not mean you are a racist or a subnormal because you do not validate
someone else's religion.
On the other hand try to read the astrology interest group's motives in
a more charitable way as commentary on "how can we take money off the table
when people who really believe in astrology do their trading for reasons
we don't make any sense of, especially when they give a contrarian signal
compared to other objective facts". To me the stars and planets guys must
have their tongues in their cheeks, but maybe making money. It is whithin
the realm of science to study how many people both howl at the full moon and
boost the market prices so that we can take advantage.
PeteNa9090
petena9090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|