|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Serge:
Look at the astro stuff as a theory on the table that
you can either confirm or deny. Individuals simply post what they are
doing, not necessarily for analysis by the public. If you want to check
their theories out, then give it a whirl. But the person using the astro
stuff has no obligation to meet your requirements for validity. This is
not a peer reviewed scientific journal! And as hard as you try, and as
much as I would like to see what you and ztrader want in terms of evidence, the
majority on this board, or just about any other, will not conform to your
standards in my lifetime. You may want to see orbs to the minute, etc.,
but the person that developed the system might have found a correlation between
SPX and the position of Mars relative to the top of the oak tree in the
front yard as viewed from the rocking chair on the front porch. Why
shouldn't that person use that information? Because you would
not? So let's get on with our trading, picking up what makes
sense to each of us and rejecting the rest. Yes, the wildest theories
might be proposed and claimed to be true. So what. If you see
throught the smoke and see the proposal for what it is worth, reject it and do
not use it. If someone wants to use it they will soon learn whether or not
your conclusion is right or wrong. Since this is not a peer reviewed
journal, validation is not a requirement and violation of "laws" is not an issue
because there are none. At best one deals with correlations in this
business since there are no known causes. So accept or reject the
correlations on the basis of the information provided or that you generate, and
move forward on that basis.
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:
r2d2
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:43
PM
Subject: RE: Re[9]: [RT] HOW
UNFORTUNATE
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.
<SPAN
class=500492902-04062001>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.
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.
|