|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
On Saturday, June 02, 2001, 9:27:08 PM, Norman Winski wrote:
>> 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> NW: That's fine, then don't complain if you don't get the scientific proof
NW> you want.
I'm not complaining at all, just making a comment that it would be
nice to have some scientific proof for the large number of claims
made.
>> 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> NW: Ok, I will retract the "always" and say that based on my observation on
NW> this list,
NW> it is most of the time.
Again, I NEVER depend on others to do my analyses. If I do see
something of interest on this list, I would check it out myself,
likely using additional techniques as appropriate, to see if it seems
useful to me - and maybe to see if I believe it at all.
You make WAY too many assumptions about other people, and the way you
express these often-erroneous assumptions can be rather obnoxious.
>> If you make a claim, you provide the analysis.
NW> NW: First of all, you assume this is a science list which it is not.
I do not make that assumption. In fact, it is clear to me that this is
NOT a science list. :-) If anything, there is a strong bias AGAINST
science. Again, you make WAY too many assumptions about other people.
NW> This is a business list.
Ooops - I thought it was a trading list. :-)
NW> If the inventor of Coca-Cola were to say
NW> to you, you should try Coca-Cola, it is really a good drink, you
NW> would say, prove it and give me the recipe and ingredients.
No, I would NOT say that. I would simply taste it and see if I like
it. Again, you make WAY too many assumptions about other people.
>> If person A makes a claim, person A should provide the analysis.
NW> NW: Not here.
On this list, that is probably true. If A makes an outrageous claim,
and B asks for some proof, the participants yell at **B** for asking
for proof. I believe that if person A makes a claim, person A should
provide the proof. Otherwise, we open the list to all kinds of
charlatans - all too common in this business.
NW> Feel lucky that I am willing to point you in a direction that
NW> I have found to be beneficial .
I don't feel lucky - I'm more comfortable with a stat edge -- but
that's one of the differences between the religious & science camps.
NW> There is nothing in it for me to give you the recipe or the 11
NW> secret herbs and spices.
Even a bit of scientific proof could give you some credibility with
the science camp.
>> 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.
NW> NW: Bottomline is I don't care if you are convinced or not.
Of course not - I don't expect that. But, realize the converse is also
true. :-) The religious vs science discussion goes on, and on, and
on.... as always.
NW> If anyone has followed some of my forecasts over the four years I
NW> have been on this list, they may recollect that I have a better
NW> than random batting average.
We could analyze that, couldn't we? But a short while ago, when
someone tried to do just a bit of that, the person making the analysis
was severely chastised for doing this kind of analysis. He was accused
of 'criticizing' others. The 'religious' camp is VERY threatened by
any attempt at scientific analysis of their 'beliefs'. Again, analysis
is NOT criticism!
This is, indeed, not a science list.
>> If you make a claim, you provide the analysis.
NW> NW: I am not making any claims in the sense of a scientific claim.
It sounds as though you are saying 'if A, then B'. This is something
that can be tested by analysis, can it not?
Are you making a 'religious' claim, that cannot possibly be tested by
any scientific method?
NW> Perhaps if you didn't spend so much time criticizing others,
I'm not criticizing anyone. I'm merely asking for some analysis to
substantiate claims. I do realize, however, how devastating a contrary
scientific analysis could be to someone who 'believes'. This
unpleasant prospect could raise much anxiety for the 'believer', and
cause him to consider it criticism. But, analysis is NOT criticism.
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/
|