|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
On Saturday, June 02, 2001, 1:55:30 PM, Norman Winski wrote:
NW> Given the fact that you claim to be so expert at scientific
NW> statistical analysis, why haven't you performed your desired
NW> analysis?
Given the lack of a 'scientific' basis, I don't 'believe' in the
techniques. Why should I spend time looking at things I don't
'believe' in?
NW> Why do you always depend on other to do the analysis
NW> that you say you would like to see?
First, I NEVER depend on others to do my analyses. Your 'always' has
no basis in fact and is an example of a snide remark that deserves
correction by you.
NW> Why not do your own analysis and share it with us?
True believer A claims to have a great technique.
Scientist B asks for scientific proof of A's claim.
It is NOT up to scientist B to validate A's claim - that is A's
responsibility.
If you make a claim, you provide the analysis.
NW> Take one of the many hypothesis that has been presented, that you
NW> have challenged on this list, and post the analysis you so long
NW> desire.
If person A makes a claim, person A should provide the analysis.
NW> I eagerly await to be shown the digital light.
So do I. After watching this astro/science discussion come up, in so
many groups, for so many years, and with not *one* stat confirmation,
I must conclude that it is not possible to show ANY non-moon astro
correlation with the market that is statistically valid. I am waiting
to be proven wrong on this, though.
Given the lack of stat evidence that it does exist, why should I try
to prove it to those that make such claims? That is totally backwards.
If you make a claim, you provide the analysis.
ztrader
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|