1. As soon as any counter argument (or premise/s of same) is believed, the evidential support base, of the contested philosophy, is increased by that very same counter argument (and/or premises thereof)!!!
2. Whenever I ask myself, what argument could possibly serve as disproof, the seemingly nearest thing, I ever come up with, is:
an assertion that is entirely true, whilst, simultaneously, thoroughly disbelieved, by the one asserting it.
3. And the problem with the above counter argument is, that, it defeats itself from the outset, because the asserter doesn't actually believe his/her own assertion/s (i.e. lying).
1. I simply cannot follow this argument. Can you restate it in some other way?
Any argument (and/or premise/s of same), merely adds to the body of supporting evidence, because every argument that is, will, or has been, brought into existence, is a manifestation of belief, in the validity (or potential thereof) of same.
Some time ago a friend of mine recounted a similarly futile discussion where someone made mention of the existence of "the Devil".
My friend promptly declared that she did not believe in the existence of "the Devil", to which she received the following reply: "That just goes to show how powerful he is!".
The person, claiming the existence of "the Devil", had presented an argument for which any expression of disbelief, only served, to add to the body of evidentiary support, for the argument "the Devil" (a.k.a. "the Father of lies") exists.
(There does exist, at least one, interesting counter, namely, if someone can believe in the existence of an ultimate deceiver, how did such a believer, remain impervious to the Deceiver's inordinate power/s of deception?!
But then again, could the existence of such a counter, being so logically persuasive in convincing others of the falsity of such belief by merit of its contradictory nature, not simply qualify, as further evidence for the potency of the great Deceiver?!i.e. potent enough to decieve via subversion of logic!).
2.
(i) [An assertion]: the assertion is the subject matter under discussion. The subject matter can be true; and
(ii) [that is entirely true,] so the assertion [subject] is in this case true; and
(iii) [simultaneously, thoroughly disbelieved,] is at the same time thought not to be true; by
(iv) [by the one asserting it.] by a person who is representing the assertion.
There is no conflict here. The person can be:
(i) as you say, lying; or
(b) mistaken; or
(iii) representing a third party's opinion.
No!
The representative is merely relaying another party's opinion.
To relate this to trading, one might think in terms of "execution only" brokers facilitating transactions between traders and the exchange.(Over the counter, proprietary and cross trading, considerations aside), the broker is merely acting as a conduit between parties. Mediums ought not be conflated with that which is channelled.
A true statement, can qualify as a lie, if stated with deceitful intent, and, conversely, an untrue statement, made sans deceitful intent, does not qualify as a lie, despite the statement being untrue!
If a person says
"All things existing, including the stones underfoot, do so consciously, and are alive!",
many (but definitely not all) might consider such a statement to be untrue. Provided the person making that statement, did so deliberately, despite considering it to be untrue, then a lie has indeed been told, and yet, the content of the statement itself, need not necessarily be untrue.
Now, consider this, if I were to say:
"The stones underfoot are neither alive nor conscious."
I would most definitely be telling a lie, even if the content of the statement happened to be true!
Now to relate this to financial markets...
This forum is often alerted to the existence of entities, offering products and/or services, which purportedly enable the generation outstandingly healthy returns on investment.
One (of a number of useful adages), is as follows :
"If it seems too good to be true, then it very probably is (too good to be true)!".
Of the many seemingly "too good to be true" offerings, I've encountered over the years, I am aware of at least a few, that were made with sincerity.
As such those particular offerings, could not truly be declared swindles, but, nonetheless, yielded similarly unfortunate results.
Overly optimistic assumptions, about the usefulness of correlations, discovered via backtesting and/or hindsight trading, were the usual culprits, leading to misconceptions about the likely future performance of the strategies so derived.
The promised returns were not actually lies, but did ultimately prove to be untrue, after those unfortunate enough to have trusted those offerings, discovered, to their dismay, that substantial losses had been realised in lieu of their hopes and dreams.
Of course, history has also revealed multitudes of another type of "too good to be true" offering, namely, that which is proffered by swindlers.
Unlike the over optimistic hindsight traders, the swindlers, by definition, know themselves to be intentionally engaging in the perpetration of acts of deceit.
Anyhow, irrespective of whether such sensational offerings are made sincerely, or dishonestly, the sheer multitude of such offerings, combined with the noticeable dearth of demonstrably successful clients, gives ample cause for visitation of scepticism.
However, before expediently "calling a spade a spade", it may prove prudent, to first give deeper consideration, to the potential legal ramifications, of overtly doing so, within a public arena.
Overtly defamatory behaviour, has at times, been known to attract litigation, where some burden of proof is placed upon the suspected swindler's accuser (i.e. the one so bluntly declaring "It's a scam".)
So when nobly seeking to warn the unwary, take care not to inadvertantly step into a legal minefield.
Instead of overtly declaring a specific entity as definitely, (or even likely), "a scam", try offering some useful pointers on how one might go about assessing, the integrity of the sensational claims, under consideration.
Basically, where possible, "teach the unwary how to fish".
And should the unwary prove to be so captivated by the lure of fantastic returns as to be unwilling, or unable, to openly consider reasoned arguments, then simply remind oneself, that sometimes the painful lessons in life, whilst emotionally and financially painful, can prove to be highly effective educators.