Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. Charters who wrote (85854)	5/28/2002 10:30:57 AM
From: Cage Rattler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116820

You mention observation and confirmation of cycles. What is “dormant-stock-revival” and how can it be recognized? As the Devils advocate - - - Rejecting things out of hand is not contrary to the scientific method; but may simply reflect philosophical differences in hypothesis formation – for example intervening variables vis-à-vis hypothetical constructs. Theoretical elegance after all, favors parsimony. And is roughly comparable to the elusive universal theory in relativity physics. Another aspects elevating an hypothesis is it’s ability to accurately predict, not just fit an ad hoc series of data. It sounds as though Claude Shannon may have been on the right track, but like so many others, his secret theories cannot be tested. Don’t you wonder about the validity of such claims? It seems that true mathematician would place higher value on recognition as a mathematician that .5 Million dollars? Universal to most systems it seems, is secrecy and high cost. High cost plays to another non sequitor -- the higher the price the better the product. Also, I am convinced that some systems are complicated for no reason beyond masking and deodorize stable droppings. We all can reflect upon successful professional and business peers – when you get to the bottom line, aren’t many of them simply full of crap? Considering theoretical modeling -- many “theories” may be in error from honestly confusion of cause-effect statistics and correlation statistics. Correlation does not reflect cause-effect. As you say, if the causal elements can be identified, perhaps they can be understood using sophisticated statistical methods such as multiple-linear regression. However, this is complex and may lead to more public confusion than enlightenment. One might also contemplate the effect if the markets were predictable. Would the market have reason to exist? Ted