|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I have
noticed most systems and indicators give a buy /sell signal almost in unison and
that you can find astro justification for acting in any manner of ways at any
time easily . Ultimately it is the qualifiers for entry,exit,staying flat
and reversal + money management which do the trick.
Unless
one submits a plan for public analysis[with stats ] and not ask for faith +
gullibility as some Gann erudites do then we might all concoct the wildest
theories and claim them to be true.
For
example in Astrology I would expect aspect orbs to the minute/sec and a
consistency of planet identity .
<SPAN
class=500492902-04062001>
<SPAN
class=500492902-04062001>S
<FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2>-----Original Message-----From: wavemechanic
[mailto:wd78@xxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent: June 02, 2001 20:42 PMTo:
realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: Re[8]: [RT] HOW
UNFORTUNATE
In an ideal world, you are correct. If A makes a
claim, justification for the claim should be provided so that B can attempt to
reproduce the results in accordance with good scientific methodology. But
I am afraid that this list does not live in such a world, and insisting on
standard scientific methodology suitable for peer review from this list is
inappropriate. That being the case, if you are interested in the subject
matter, I suggest you treat all claims as theories that you the
"experimentalist" will properly investigate in an attempt to prove or disprove
the theories. Until that is done, the "theoreticians" will continue to put
forth their theories and may even act on these unproven theories on their
own behalf. In the meantime, until you finish your experiments, we
can hopefully put this subject on the shelf since it is presently going in
circles without any end in sight.
Bill
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
ztrader
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 2:22 PM
Subject: Re[8]: [RT] HOW
UNFORTUNATE
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 proofNW> you
want.I'm not complaining at all, just making a comment that it would
benice to have some scientific proof for the large number of
claimsmade.>> 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
onNW> this list,NW> it is most of the time.Again, I
NEVER depend on others to do my analyses. If I do seesomething of interest
on this list, I would check it out myself,likely using additional
techniques as appropriate, to see if it seemsuseful to me - and maybe to
see if I believe it at all.You make WAY too many assumptions about
other people, and the way youexpress 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 isNOT a science list. :-) If anything, there is a strong bias
AGAINSTscience. 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
sayNW> to you, you should try Coca-Cola, it is really a good drink,
youNW> 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 likeit. 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 askingfor proof. I believe that if person A
makes a claim, person A shouldprovide the proof. Otherwise, we open the
list to all kinds ofcharlatans - all too common in this
business.NW> Feel lucky that I am willing to point you in a
direction thatNW> I have found to be beneficial .I don't feel
lucky - I'm more comfortable with a stat edge -- butthat'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 11NW> secret herbs
and spices.Even a bit of scientific proof could give you some
credibility withthe 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 alsotrue. :-) The religious vs science discussion
goes on, and on, andon.... as always.NW> If anyone has followed
some of my forecasts over the four years INW> have been on this list,
they may recollect that I have a betterNW> than random batting
average.We could analyze that, couldn't we? But a short while ago,
whensomeone tried to do just a bit of that, the person making the
analysiswas severely chastised for doing this kind of analysis. He was
accusedof 'criticizing' others. The 'religious' camp is VERY threatened
byany attempt at scientific analysis of their 'beliefs'. Again,
analysisis 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 somethingthat can be tested by analysis, can it not?Are
you making a 'religious' claim, that cannot possibly be tested byany
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 tosubstantiate claims. I do realize, however, how
devastating a contraryscientific analysis could be to someone who
'believes'. Thisunpleasant prospect could raise much anxiety for the
'believer', andcause him to consider it criticism. But, analysis is NOT
criticism.ztraderTo unsubscribe from this
group, send an email
to:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To
unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour use
of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|