|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hi Norm:
Glad to see I prodded a response. You wrote:
> NW: The argument that everyone must use the exact same methodology and
arrive
> at the exactsame interpretation certainly eliminates disciplines as
Medicine,
> Meteorology, and Psychology as being anywhere close to being scientific.
So,
> if the practitioners of these disciplines are willing to concede that
their
> field has little basis in science, then perhaps the Astrologers will do
the
> same.
Your points of accuracy are will taken......
>
> > Think about it. There are many types of astrological systems, methods
> > for constructing charts, house systems, etc. How could there, then, be
> > any ground for a common interpretation?
>
> NW: Think about it. There are many types of mathematical systems,
methods,
> for so many disciplines. And everyone knows that the best way to lie is
by
> using numbers.
> How could there be any grounds for a common interpretation or any
validity to
> mathematics? <G>
Doesn't this beg the question on the issue of what Astrology purports to
deliver: TIMING. The future positions and movements of the planets can be
calculated with mathmatical exactitude; providing compelling arguments to
the cycle shortcomings which have a fixed periodicity.
>
> > I think that a lot of what goes on
> > with the cause and effect aspect of financial astrology can be best ex-
> > plained by the same phenomena that explains the Super Bowl indicator.
>
> NW: Like it or not, very few forecasting indicators have a better track
record
> than does the Super Bowl indicator. As a trader, I really don't care why
it
> works, only that it does work.It is not for me to wonder why, but only to
sell
> or buy.
I thought you used financial astrology?
>
> > Apart from the fact that I have not seen any model logic which explains
why
> > this should work, it is a case of coincidental back fitting. That is
to
> > say,
> > this was simply one event that the law of large numbers thrust to the
> > spotlight as being associated with overall movements in the stock
market.
> > Now, think about the dynamic backdrop of astro phenomena always in
motion.
> > In the same manner, one is bound to find something that appears to be
> > causal; if you look hard enough.
>
> NW: Can you explain why and how Gravity works or is this just back
fitting
> too so it does not really exist? I love these snappy generic "tv
dinner"
> arguments. They are fast, convenient, and can be applied to just about
> anything. Unfortunately, they seldom provide much in the way of
nourishing
> truth.
No I can't prove it but I'm not going to jump off a building. I believe
that's
called empiricism. <G>
Regards,
Charles
I believe
|