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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Buy and Sell Signals, and Other Market Perspectives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: #Breeze who wrote (217817)	10/20/2025 5:12:58 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Respond to of 218710

My dear friend, I highly value your lengthy comment on The Hindenburg Omen scenario, but the argument for it's validity is really defective logic, I'm referring specifically to basic Aristotelian Logic or simple deductive reasoning... Let me give you an example of what I mean here... If it rains, then the sidewalk will get wet... That comment is simple and straightforward... Let's look at it again: If it rains, then the sidewalk will get wet... But, from that simple sentence, we cannot therefore deduce logically that if the sidewalk is wet then it must have rained... Why is this not a logical conclusion??? Because the sidewalk can also get wet from a nearby sprinkler, or if you wet it by some other means... Sure, it can get wet from the rain but it can also get wet from something else nearby... This misstep in logic is referred to as affirming the consequence... All we know to be true is if it rains, then the sidewalk will get wet... All we can conclude is if it rains then the sidewalk will get wet and nothing more than that... Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy where one assumes that if the consequent of a conditional statement is true, then the antecedent must also be true... This reasoning is invalid because the same consequence can arise from different antecedents... The market could crash for other reasons and the Omen conditions could also be present by mere coincidence... Sure, the same market conditions may be present for the Omen to occur, but to affirm the consequence and then therefore suggest that the consequence is also true is a gross mistake in simple logic... I'm not at all saying that you yourself made that logical error, not at all... It's a common error and many people make that deductive error... What I am saying is that those who claim the market must crash only because the same Omen conditions occur are making a fault logical deduction... Simply stated, if certain conditions occur many times and nothing happens and then those same conditions also occur when the market crashes, then those given conditions more than likely have absolutely nothing if anything at all to do with the market crashing... For this reason, I believe too much is made of something that occurs often enough without any consequences to hold any credible significance... Just my two cents here and I believe Aristotle would agree... GZ