|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
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.
Agreed. And the greatest scrutiny is bottom line results. As long as Norm,
Haytham, myself or anyone else on this list can provide reasonable results
from their analysis and projections, whether others believe their methodology
is hogwash or no better than chance, their methodology is reasonable.
Whether their reading tea leaves or trading from the reproductive cycle of
roaches or bacteria, the bottom line is are they right, how much so, within
what time frame, is there methodology tradable, can their methodology and
results be easily duplicated and can money be made. It doesn't matter how you
get there in my opinion, as long as you get there with a profit.
But for some the way their minds work, they simply need a tangible
methodology based on their life experiences. Reading tea leaves or basing
trades from life cycles may be difficult for them to handle intellectually.
No one disputes Earls posts, yet how easily are they reproducible by anyone
on the list. The bottom line is he right infinitely more often than not. Some
people just need something that looks "scientific." Something that appears
complicated in itself can sometimes provide justification. Gee, if it's
difficult to do and right often, it must be a better way.
The bottom line are results. And as long as those results make money, the
methodology is valid, whether we like it or not.
I have studied/read Einstein's work for many years. I just happen to like
physics. But when he presented both his general and special theory's of
relativity they were scoffed at as too complicated, too far out for the
mainstream. But once everyone understood the mathematics and a tangible event
occurred which then supported his hypotheses', he was immediately thrust to
the forefront of physics as an expert. Then many realized his idea's were
actually simple in concept and said that if he didn't do it, someone else
would have shortly. it was also then stated that he was a poor mathematician.
So at first, his math was too complicated, then when an understanding was
gained, he was a bad mathematician and others could have done the work in
half the time.
Which now brings us to the nay sayers. They will always be there and always
scoff and things they don't understand or are not comfortable with
intuitively. Though Delta is astro based, I have always had a difficult time
"believing" intuitively in hard astro based trading. To me, intuitively, I
can understand how the earth, moon and sun can affect things. they are close
celestial bodies. But to my mind, Pluto crossing the path of Neptune is too
far away and the gravitational influences are too weak to effect the markets.
Yet I have never studied hard astro facts to form a real opinion based on
analysis yet an opinion is formed. That's the way human mind works. But I
intellectually know that I have not studied it, have no hard facts to support
or deny Norm's work, so I say nothing. Yet I have seen his analysis come to
fruition many times therefore that validates his work.
So because I don't understand it, and is not intuitively comfortable for me,
does not mean I am going to deny it's validity. His work stands on it's
results as does everyone's and that's the bottom line. That is also why no
one should not scoff at anyone's work. If they're right, they're right.
Whether we are intuitively comfortable with their methodology or not, should
not be an issue which many times it is whether many realize that or not.
And those who simply criticize, should post their own analysis for every
criticism. I abhor critics. They contribute little in any field. And make
note, I said simply criticize. Anyone's work should stand on it's results.
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.
|