Quote from: arepo on March 07, 2013, 01:35:19 AM

hey all you TA nay-sayers out there! this is your chance. i'm opening a thread for discussion on this very important point so you guys can stop spamming mine and lucif's threads.

Hey, lets get the facts straight. You are constantly spamming this forum with your threads advertising the so called "methods" of "technical" "analysis". This is annoying at least

Even the mere fact that you use the words "technical" and "analysis" for some kind of coffee cup reading is infuriating for anyone who has learned his way in the hard sciences and knows how technology works.

So this thread is your chance.

Quote from: arepo on March 07, 2013, 01:35:19 AM

let's set some ground rules:
try not to repeat points.
TA is a hypothesis that needs to be discredited properly (rigorously), i.e. not in the manner that nanopene employed.
'disproving' TA involves....

And here you start with your manipulation and propaganda right away.

Again, lets set things straight.
By this "disproving" approach, you are implying that TA is even anything of a method.

This is not the way it works. Rather, you are proposing some kind of method, which you like to label "technical" and "analysis"
Now you have to show that this method indeed exists, and provide a verifiable description of it.

This works by starting from a null hypothesis, and disproving this.

So the null hypothesis might be:

TA is not an exact method, i.e. it does not consist of any clearly delineated description of operations, which can be conducted with precision and lead to a predictable and verifiable result.
and especially: TA is not a method yielding any reliable predictions of market behaviour with a probability significantly above picking of random hypothesis

So to disprove this null hypothesis, we need to give (1) a precise description of some method or algorithm, which can be executed in a reliable, rational, and verifiable way. And (2) we need to execute that method under controlled and verifiable conditions and yield a significant score of prediction.

Unless we succeed with that, there is no such thing as "Technical" "Analysis". It simply doesn't exist.
And thus its use should not be advertised further.

But maybe there is a third solution. Maybe there is something much more level-headed. Something along the lines of "a long time trader's rules of thumb". Something more of a craft, than being technology or analysis. Then we should be so prudent to ditch all that pseudo-math and pseudo-scientific furnish and handle it just as that: a bunch of rules of thumb and gut feeling. There is nothing wrong with that.