Dump it Here

[ducati916]

We have all experienced different states of consciousness. The common ones are unconsciousness (deep sleep), dream sleep, reverie and waking. There are other states - some say hundreds of them - above the waking state. Probably everyone has had a glimpse of them at some point in life. When such states are happening, reality seems to become a bit more 'plastic', and there seems to be some level of interaction between the mind and what we call consensus reality. Sometimes it is so abrupt and obvious it's startling.

It's not such a strange idea. Despite appearances, reality is one thing, not multiple things. Why would my thoughts not interact with consensus reality? It's like saying the tree's roots have no influence on the leaves. They are not two things, they are one thing.

It would be nice if one could tweak this phenomenon and manifest a Ferrari. I can't do that and I've never heard of anyone who can. People who write those sort of books are usually living in a fantasy world. What I'm referring to is a very obvious synchronicity which is so far beyond chance, and so immediately tied to one's thoughts as to render it virtually impossible. And not one incident, but a string of them. When one brings will power and personal desire (ego) into the equation, the link vanishes. Some will say "convenient eh?". I'm just saying what I've experienced. It is what it is.

Do I accept that there are different levels of consciousness - yes. There are any number of psychoactive substances that will alter levels of consciousness, trances, hypnosis, deep meditative states etc.

Is this 'reality'? For that individual, at that time, possibly, but it is not 'reality' for anyone else. Unless that individual is permanently in a form of psychosis, they will return to 'reality' at some point.

Reality consists of cause and effect. We interact with reality by manipulating causes to gain effects.

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

This was your claim, and it was FALSE:

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.

You instead created a straw man to respond to a question which was not raised.
Next:

Why would the Father of Lies, choose to inform, or want anyone to be informed, about his nature?! Why would the Father of Lies, require coherence?!

You seem not to understand what is at issue, and it is "faith".
My simple response is that in lay terms there are people who use reason to determine a cause for belief.
With regard to your many other questions, people are not perfect.
There are cheats, liars and fraudsters, and then there are people who either cannot tell the difference or are unwilling to accept they could ever be party to their motives.

 

[cynic]

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.

1. The problem here is that a counter-argument is not necessarily a proven fact. It is a counter-argument that is 'believed', belief is not factually proven and is therefore incapable of adding to or subtracting from the 'truth' - whatever the truth actually is.

Putting it another way: it does not matter how many believe 'X', the truth or falsity of 'X' is unaffected by the nominal belief it attracts.

Which is why Popper and falsifiability is such a strong principle.

The problem here is that statements are being presented that are believed to be true.

Markets move because people trade them.

People trade markets because they move.

If nobody traded, markets would not move.

If markets do not move, people are not trading.

2.
(i) [an assertion that is entirely true]: the assertion is a fact, a fact that is a true fact (in this case);

(ii) [whilst simultaneously, thoroughly disbelieved,]: the true fact is not believed;

(iii) [by the one asserting it.]:

assert
Dictionary result for assert
/əˈsəːt/
verb
gerund or present participle: asserting

1. state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.
   "the company asserts that the cuts will not affect development"
   synonyms: declare, maintain, contend, argue, state, claim, propound, submit, posit, postulate, adduce, move, advocate, venture, volunteer, aver, proclaim, announce, pronounce, attest, affirm, protest, profess, swear, insist, avow; More
   
   • cause others to recognize (one's authority or a right) by confident and forceful behaviour.
     "the good librarian is able to assert authority when required"
     synonyms: insist on, stand up for, uphold, defend, contend, establish, press/push for, stress
     "elderly people find it increasingly difficult to assert their rights"
   • behave or speak in a confident and forceful manner.
     "it was time to assert himself"
     synonyms: behave confidently, speak confidently, be assertive, put oneself forward, make one's presence felt, exert one's influence, make people sit up and take notice, make people sit up and listen;
     informalput one's foot down
     "a large government majority can encourage backbenchers to assert themselves

None of the definitions of the word preclude my previous possibilities, viz:

(i) lying (your example);
(ii) mistaken; or
(iii) expressing a third party's opinion/belief.

As it is written, your argument is simply incorrect.

jog on
duc

That's great Duc! Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

If I have somehow failed to correctly convey my intended meaning, via faulty word choices/usage, or lack of contextual clarity , then I apologise.

Did my "execution only" brokers comparison, somehow fail to contextually clarify, my intended meaning for you?

Understanding market context can be an important consideration for some traders.

 

[cynic]

This was your claim, and it was FALSE:

If you believe it so.
Thankyou for your ample demonstration of the veracity of the point I raised.

You instead created a straw man to respond to a question which was not raised.

Straw men can be most insightful, and have much to offer:

====================================================
Now how might this relate to trading.

Does own know one's personal limitations?

If not, then rest assured!
The market has a well established history of educating people on same, via emotionally, and financially, costly life lessons.

And what if one thinks one already knows one's personal limitations, what then?

How does one discern what one thinks one knows, from what one truly knows?

Take note of the straw man! Despite his mental limitation (i.e. lacking a brain) useful insights might be discerned by those keenly observing his behaviour!

 

[rederob]

If you believe it so.
Thankyou for your ample demonstration of the veracity of the point I raised.

Logic is not formed in belief.
Your claim is that "Any argument (and/or premise/s of same), merely adds to the body of supporting evidence. "
Arguments are supported by statements.
Statements (premises) must be valid in order to draw a sound conclusion.
Statements which are not valid lead to unsound conclusions.
It is an utter nonsense to propose what you have.

 

[ducati916]

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)!!!

1. The problem here is that a counter-argument is not necessarily a proven fact. It is a counter-argument that is 'believed', belief is not factually proven and is therefore incapable of adding to or subtracting from the 'truth' - whatever the truth actually is.

Putting it another way: it does not matter how many believe 'X', the truth or falsity of 'X' is unaffected by the nominal belief it attracts.

So now let me re-address [1] using the same argument stated in a slightly different way.

Again, it is necessary to break the sentence into constituent parts:

(i) [As soon as any counter argument is believed] At the moment the argument is put forward by 'X' it is believed by 'Y'.

(ii) [the evidential support base,] the 'evidence' , which in this case is implied to be the strength of the evidence [support base]. It is not clear however whether the strength of the evidence is in: (a) volume of evidence [number of people believing] or (b) a higher probability of reaching an uncontroverted fact [based on an empirically proven fact or a deduction from an a priori axiom].

Dictionary result for evidence
/ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
noun

1. 
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation;

It can be seen from the definition that either usage is correct. It is becoming clearer that you are using the word evidence in the context of a 'fact'.

I am using it in the context of merely 'indicating'.

The reason that I am using it in this context is because of the word "As soon as any counter argument is believed"

Belief in a counter-argument, unless proven [in some manner] does not equate to a fact. It is simply a belief founded on faith. If it is not a fact, then the evidence, is the evidence of belief, which is the definition of evidence that uses 'indicating' as its meaning. Indicating is a probability: not a fact.

It is only after the belief has taken place, that it adds to the evidential support base, as a probability. This probability is however based on a 'volume' of evidence, [not the strength of the probability of the evidence] which has no relation to the probability that the evidence is a fact.

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

The reason that I am using it in this context is because of the word "As soon as any counter argument is believed"

It seems easier to go back to what constitutes an argument.
People are making statements which lead to a reasoned conclusion.
If their statement (premise in this case) is not supported by their evidence then they cannot arrive at a sound conclusion.
The construction of the argument has nothing to do with belief.
You seem to be creating some mystique over the nature if the evidence. As I see it, that would be an entirely separate argument and dilute something relatively straightforward with epistemology.
Whenever minutiae come into play philosophy falls into the hole of infinite regress.

 

[cynic]

Logic is not formed in belief.
Your claim is that "Any argument (and/or premise/s of same), merely adds to the body of supporting evidence. "
Arguments are supported by statements.
Statements (premises) must be valid in order to draw a sound conclusion.
Statements which are not valid lead to unsound conclusions.
It is an utter nonsense to propose what you have.

If you believe it so, then I again thankyou for providing further demonstration of my point.

Has one learnt anything new, from straw men, in recent times?

Or does one already know everything?
========================================================

Now to relate this to financial markets.

So one might think one knows, enough about the financial markets, to trade profitably!

How does one know, that one knows enough to trade profitably?!

Perhaps one has ready many books written be experienced traders.
Does reading about sport make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has learnt how to chant popularised mantras courtesy of some purported market gurus (i.e. "trend is your friend", "fail to plan, plan to fail","only worth what someone is willing to pay")!
Does quoting the, purportedly sage, advice, of actual sportsmen, make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has engaged in lengthy discussions about trading!
Does talking about sport make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has watched other people engaged in live trading, or electronic representations of same!
Does sitting in the crowd of spectators at a game, or viewing the game on television, make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has thoroughly examined and analysed historical data!
Does analysis of past games make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has "traded" using a simulator or "demo" account!
Does the playing of video games make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has been successful in debating the perceived merits of a trading methodology!
Arguments with umpires aside, when in history, has intellectual debate, ever won a game of cricket or football?

 

[rederob]

If you believe it so, then I again thankyou for providing further demonstration of my point.

Has one learnt anything new, from straw men, in recent times?

Or does one already know everything?
========================================================

Now to relate this to financial markets.

So one might think one knows, enough about the financial markets, to trade profitably!

How does one know, that one knows enough to trade profitably?!

Perhaps one has ready many books written be experienced traders.
Does reading about sport make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has learnt how to chant popularised mantras courtesy of some purported market gurus (i.e. "trend is your friend", "fail to plan, plan to fail","only worth what someone is willing to pay")!
Does quoting the, purportedly sage, advice, of actual sportsmen, make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has engaged in lengthy discussions about trading!
Does talking about sport make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has watched other people engaged in live trading, or electronic representations of same!
Does sitting in the crowd of spectators at a game, or viewing the game on television, make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has thoroughly examined and analysed historical data!
Does analysis of past games make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has "traded" using a simulator or "demo" account!
Does the playing of video games make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has been successful in debating the perceived merits of a trading methodology!
Arguments with umpires aside, when in history, has intellectual debate, ever won a game of cricket or football?

You need to get some mental health help.
Continuing your irrational games here is fascinating.
Markets are active things which have a history.
They also have an apparent future.
Individual decisions to enter markets are quite separate from what the market does after one has entered. They are completely different senses.
One's view on their prospects while in the market can be conditioned by reasonable expectations, but markets are inherently irrational.

 

[Skate]

You need to get some mental health help.
Continuing your irrational games here is fascinating.
Markets are active things which have a history.
They also have an apparent future.
Individual decisions to enter markets are quite separate from what the market does after one has entered. They are completely different senses.
One's view on their prospects while in the market can be conditioned by reasonable expectations, but markets are inherently irrational.

rederob, I've been watching this exchange with great interest & I have made many posts on the subject of beliefs & belief systems in this thread. Your last post is not in the spirit of the 'Dump it here' thread. It may be beneficial for you to read a few of my comments.

Your beliefs shape your reality
I didn't want to jump in as I have a simple philosophy that "your beliefs shape your reality"

Conviction
A person with a conviction is a hard person to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

Civility when expressing an opinion
Members who express an opinion whether they are right or wrong or whether you’re right or wrong that's not what is important.

What is important
The words you use to express an alternative point of view or express an opinion from your experience.

Ridiculed or challenged
This thread gives you the ability to express your views without being ridiculed or challenged.

Appreciation
I appreciate every view expressed here on 'Dump it here' thread, I don't agree with some but others I take on board & feel wealthier for it. I have been reading this exchange with great interest.

Acceptance
We can all agree to disagree - we can all contest our ideas but to express those views in a manner that's unacceptable is not on.

Belief
Your belief system defines whether you agree or disagree with a members post but if you don’t listen you forgo the right to understand their point of view..

My belief references
Post #3 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1005969/
Post #4 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1005970/
Post #11 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1005977/
Post #39 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006013/
Post #94 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006119/
Post #113 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006166/
Post #125 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006190/
Post #145 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006220/
Post #172 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006317/
Post #221 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006413/
Post #339 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006616/
Post #343 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006625/
Post #423 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006862/
Post #444 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006906/
Post #445 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006907/
Post #456 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1006992/
Post #481 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1007236/
Post #544 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1007584/
Post #628 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1008407/
Post #672 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1008811/
Post #756 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1009329/
Post #792 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1009489/
Post #808 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1009576/
Post #810 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1009591/
Post #962 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1010701/
Post #1078 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1011244/
Post #1088 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1011261/
Post #1109 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1011323/
Post #1157 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1011847/
Post #1159 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1011852/
Post #1161 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1011854/
Post #1162 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1011857/
Post #1182 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1011898/
Post #1210 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1011976/
Post #1125 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1011518/
Post #1268 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1012156/
Post #1269 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1012157/
Post #1432 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1013069/

Skate.

 

[Skate]

Friendly reminder
To all posters, let keep this thread different to most, by expressing our views respectfully

Opinions are welcomed in the 'Dump it here' thread
We shouldn't ridicule or challenge posters as it serves no purpose, it's like masturbating in public, it may feel good to you, but it looks disgusting to everyone else and it just makes the other person work harder to find ways to disagree with you.

Being right or wrong
Whether your view is right or wrong isn't important, what's more important, this thread gives you the ability to express your views without being ridiculed or challenged.

Experience
Every member enjoys a different level of experience & expertise, there is never a reason to display your level of knowledge by making others feel inferior.

Timely reminder
Abuse, insults and personal attacks directed at other people are unacceptable in the "Dump it here' thread, I'm not policing the thread but it pays to remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Alternative view
If you disagree with someone rather than argue the merits of their points, post an alternative view, you don't have to belittle members to get your point across. Play the "the point" not the "person"

Never react to a post but respond (Responding will give you time to think)
1. Consider the context of what you are saying, put yourself in their shoes, try to understand their point of view.
2. Consider if your post adds value to the discussion.
3. When expressing an alternative view, start off by saying “In my opinion …” and try to focus on the issues rather than person.
4. We are all wordsmiths to some degree & it's easy to incite an emotional, knee-jerk response, creating an emotional outburst.

Friendly atmosphere
Such posts that incite emotional responses tend to undermine the friendly atmosphere often resulting in long running feuds creating factional loyalty to one side or the other.

Hard to detect
Offending a member is hard to detect. However, some members tend to follow patterns of behaviour, posting to invoke an emotional response, never answering questions directly to justify their position but they "always demand documentary evidence" from others to support their assertions, while offering none in return.

We all deserve a measured response not the alternative.

Skate.

 

[rederob]

rederob, I've been watching this exchange with great interest & I have made many posts on the subject of beliefs & belief systems in this thread. Your last post is not in the spirit of the 'Dump it here' thread. It may be beneficial for you to read a few of my comments.

Do I believe I exist?
Yes, I have evidence and I trust you see that this post helps substantiate my claim.
Do you believe I exist?
My existence to you is likely that I am a real person. Nowadays I could equally be an AI or Poe.
The above is about ontology.
If I was to meet you and we discussed this post, my existence goes beyond belief: you would have justification, and that's about epistemology.
In matters of argument, there is a structure.
To suppose an argument has no structure defeats the very purpose of using language to convey meaning.
It is unsound of cynic to continue to repeat himself unless he is proposing an alternative to logic. I have not seen this. Moreover cynic so seldom makes sense to me that I just ignore much of what he writes.
I could have chosen less charitable words and indulged in an ad hominem affront. I did not.
If cynic is not interested in rationally defending his statements then I will call out his repeated nonsense at my choosing (unless someone bans me here from posting).
Everything I have seen him post since my time here this year suggests he needs to get mental health help.

 

[Skate]

Do I believe I exist?
Yes, I have evidence and I trust you see that this post helps substantiate my claim.
Do you believe I exist?
My existence to you is likely that I am a real person. Nowadays I could equally be an AI or Poe.
The above is about ontology.
If I was to meet you and we discussed this post, my existence goes beyond belief: you would have justification, and that's about epistemology.
In matters of argument, there is a structure.
To suppose an argument has no structure defeats the very purpose of using language to convey meaning.
It is unsound of cynic to continue to repeat himself unless he is proposing an alternative to logic. I have not seen this. Moreover cynic so seldom makes sense to me that I just ignore much of what he writes.
I could have chosen less charitable words and indulged in an ad hominem affront. I did not.
If cynic is not interested in rationally defending his statements then I will call out his repeated nonsense at my choosing (unless someone bans me here from posting).
Everything I have seen him post since my time here this year suggests he needs to get mental health help.

You said:
" I could have chosen less charitable words and indulged in an ad hominem affront. I did not." (I'm glad you didn't)

rederob, thank for acknowledging that you could have selected your words better to express your view in a more measured way.

I find what has been discussed enjoyable to read, let me put my spin on it in a way most can understand, a basic understanding & not on the deeper level you have been discussing.

Identity
Our beliefs are an intricate part of our identity, the fact is none of us was born with any of our beliefs. They were all acquired in a combination of ways and sometimes by the way of a father figure.

Instilled by others
Many of the beliefs that have the most profound impact on our lives were not even acquired by us as an act of free will but instilled by other people and sometimes by force.

Negative implications
And it probably won't come as a surprise to anyone that usually the beliefs that cause us the most difficulty are those that were acquired from others without our conscious consent.

Too young
By that I mean beliefs that we acquired when we were too young and uninformed to realise the negative implications of what we were being taught.

Our beliefs shape our lives
In the broadest sense, our beliefs shape the way we experience our lives.

Beliefs are acquired
As I have already said, we're not born with any of our beliefs. They're acquired, and as they accumulate, we live our lives in a way that reflects what we have learned to believe.

Perception
They manage our perception and interpretation of environmental information in a way that is consistent with what we believe. There isn't much about the way we function that beliefs don't play a major role in.

Reinforcement
Having negative beliefs reinforced when we are young will have major implications in our adult lives, our mental well-being that will profoundly impact our lives.

We come up with stories
When our ideas or beliefs are challenged we tend to be defensive and start to make up stories confirming why you are right and everyone else is wrong. We tell ourselves the same story over and over till we tend to believe our own bull$hit.

Self-control
Finally, self-control makes everyone more productive. However, we should repress our feelings of anxiety, fear, anger or sadness when making comments about an emotive subject as personal beliefs.

Skate.

 

[rederob]

You said: " I could have chosen less charitable words and indulged in an ad hominem affront. I did not."

rederob, thank for acknowledging that you could have selected your words better to express your view in a more measured way.

I find what has been discussed enjoyable to read but let me put it in a way most can understand, a basic understanding & not on the deeper level being discussed.

Identity
Our beliefs are an intricate part of our identity, the fact is none of us was born with any of our beliefs. They were all acquired in a combination of ways and sometimes by the way of a father figure.

Instilled by others
Many of the beliefs that have the most profound impact on our lives were not even acquired by us as an act of free will but instilled by other people and sometimes by force.

Negative implications
And it probably won't come as a surprise to anyone that usually the beliefs that cause us the most difficulty are those that were acquired from others without our conscious consent.

Too young
By that I mean beliefs that we acquired when we were too young and uninformed to realise the negative implications of what we were being taught.

Our beliefs shape our lives
In the broadest sense, our beliefs shape the way we experience our lives.

Beliefs are acquired
As I have already said, we're not born with any of our beliefs. They're acquired, and as they accumulate, we live our lives in a way that reflects what we have learned to believe.

Perception
They manage our perception and interpretation of environmental information in a way that is consistent with what we believe. There isn't much about the way we function that beliefs don't play a major role in.

Reinforcement
Having negative beliefs reinforced when we are young will have major implications in our adult lives, our mental well-being that will profoundly impact our lives.

We come up with stories
When our ideas or beliefs are challenged we tend to be defensive and start to make up stories confirming why you are right and everyone else is wrong. We tell ourselves the same story over and over till we tend to believe our own bull$hit.

Self-control
Finally, self-control makes everyone more productive. However, we should repress our feelings of anxiety, fear, anger or sadness when making comments about an emotive subject as personal briefs.

Skate.

With respect, I look at what is presented and see if it makes sense. I suspect I deal with information very differently from you.
For something to make sense we apply any number of rules. A good one is to use principles of logic.
A simple way to test that logic makes sense is to consider how to put a roof on a home which has no framework to support it.
So in logic we underpin a conclusion with statements (premises) which support it.
Using the analogy again, we can test the premises such that if we can prove the framework will support the roof then our structure is reasoned and sound.
The antithesis of this is throwing around statements which have no bearing on the conclusion.
Anyone posting who wants to be credible should realise that there are good ways to present their information.
It defies logic to suppose an argument without structure would be credible.

 

[Skate]

With respect, I look at what is presented and see if it makes sense. I suspect I deal with information very differently from you.
For something to make sense we apply any number of rules. A good one is to use principles of logic.
A simple way to test that logic makes sense is to consider how to put a roof on a home which has no framework to support it.
So in logic we underpin a conclusion with statements (premises) which support it.
Using the analogy again, we can test the premises such that if we can prove the framework will support the roof then our structure is reasoned and sound.
The antithesis of this is throwing around statements which have no bearing on the conclusion.
Anyone posting who wants to be credible should realise that there are good ways to present their information.
It defies logic to suppose an argument without structure would be credible.

rederob, that's a perfect post in the spirit of this thread. Your explanation from a logical view I'm sure most would understand & appreciate.

Well done
Now that you have your groove back, I would love to hear more about your understanding of beliefs, explaining your views/positions logically.

Others
I trust others haven't lost interest in this discussion as its ads value to the 'Dump it here' thread.

Convictions & beliefs
Trading is made up of convictions & beliefs, it's our drivers.

Skate.

 

[rederob]

I would love to hear more about your understanding of beliefs, explaining your views/positions logically.

I don't believe much and don't know much.
My preference is try and work out what makes things the way they are.
If something seems not to make sense, it's either me or it.
I try to minimise the risk it is me.

 

[cynic]

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)!!!

1. The problem here is that a counter-argument is not necessarily a proven fact. It is a counter-argument that is 'believed', belief is not factually proven and is therefore incapable of adding to or subtracting from the 'truth' - whatever the truth actually is.

Putting it another way: it does not matter how many believe 'X', the truth or falsity of 'X' is unaffected by the nominal belief it attracts.

So now let me re-address [1] using the same argument stated in a slightly different way.

Again, it is necessary to break the sentence into constituent parts:

(i) [As soon as any counter argument is believed] At the moment the argument is put forward by 'X' it is believed by 'Y'.

(ii) [the evidential support base,] the 'evidence' , which in this case is implied to be the strength of the evidence [support base]. It is not clear however whether the strength of the evidence is in: (a) volume of evidence [number of people believing] or (b) a higher probability of reaching an uncontroverted fact [based on an empirically proven fact or a deduction from an a priori axiom].

Quantity, or, quality, or, quantity of quality. For the purposes of the point being made, do such considerations make a difference to the outcome?
And if so, (remembering that absence of disproof is not being claimed as disproof of absence) how so?

Dictionary result for evidence
/ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
noun

1. 
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation;

It can be seen from the definition that either usage is correct. It is becoming clearer that you are using the word evidence in the context of a 'fact'.

That was not my intention.

I am using it in the context of merely 'indicating'.

That was my intention.

The reason that I am using it in this context is because of the word "As soon as any counter argument is believed"

Belief in a counter-argument, unless proven [in some manner] does not equate to a fact. It is simply a belief founded on faith. If it is not a fact, then the evidence, is the evidence of belief, which is the definition of evidence that uses 'indicating' as its meaning. Indicating is a probability: not a fact.

It is only after the belief has taken place, that it adds to the evidential support base, as a probability. This probability is however based on a 'volume' of evidence, [not the strength of the probability of the evidence] which has no relation to the probability that the evidence is a fact.

According to the definition for evidence (so helpfully provided):
"the available body of facts or information..."

Does information (i.e. "knowledge given or received", according to "The Award compact English dictionary") truly exist, or is information truly non-existent?

Does the believer of "a belief", require knowledge of that, upon which the "belief" is founded?

Does "faith" (using one's preferred definition) truly exist, or is "faith" truly non existent?
======================================================================
Traders incorporating technical analysis into their chosen methodology, will typically select some preferred indicators, for inclusion within their toolkit.

Prior to employment of such tools, it may prove beneficial to first acquaint oneself with the tools' strengths and limitations.

What are the strengths of one's chosen indicators?

Which market conditions/contexts are more favourable?

And which market conditions are less so?

Can the indicator be expected to perform favourably in all conceivable market conditions/contexts (i.e. universally)?

If not, which conditions/contexts require alternative tools, or avoidance?

How might one, identify the unfavourable conditions/contexts early, so that an alternative tool, or evacuation, may be quickly effected?

 

[ducati916]

1. Quantity, or, quality, or, quantity of quality. For the purposes of the point being made, do such considerations make a difference to the outcome?

I would argue that it does.

Evidence is information which assists the decision maker in determining facts. To do so, the evidence must fulfil two criteria when directed at information.

(a) what is the ultimate fact to which the evidence is intended to make more/less likely; and
(b) how does the evidence make the ultimate fact more/less likely.

(i) facts in issue; and
(ii) facts going to credibility.

Facts going to credibility are those that bear upon the reliability of witnesses or a particular element of the witnesses evidence.

The evidence does not have to make a fact certain [stronger if it does] but the evidence must make the fact more/less probable.

Weight and probative value are words used to describe probability. Numbers [again] inform probability, viz. it can be measured by numbers, which gives weight or probative values.

(a) Classical Approach Frequency: 4 Jacks in a pack of cards 4/52 = relative frequency.
(b) Relative Frequencies: is where you have X observations with Y from your variable, which gives you Y/X expressed as a %.
(c) Likelihood ratios: to test the significance of the evidence [footprints found were made by a male adult shoe, low likelihood. Footprints made by an adult male shoe with a crack in the sole, higher likelihood.]

The above are merely statistical hypotheses.

(d) Circumstantial evidence: where like strands of a rope, no individual strand is sufficient, but when all together, they can bear the burden [of proof].

When assessing the evidence in combination, the rule is that the probative value of multiple items of evidence supporting the same factual allegation is greater in combination than the sum of the parts.

An example: there is a bank robbery and Ms Brown is charged with the offence.

Witness A states: the bank robber was female; and
Witness B states: heard the robber say her birthday was in July; and
Witness C states: saw the robber drive away in a red car.

These strands cumulatively add to: 1/2 x 1/12 x 1/10 = 1/240

The Crown is entitled to say that Ms Brown is 240 times more likely to have these characteristics than a random person [assuming of course that she is in point of fact female, has a red car and her birthday is in July].

Therefore the outcome, which in this case is 'belief', I would argue that this can be very dependent on the [quantity and or quality] of evidence given.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

1. Does information (i.e. "knowledge given or received", according to "The Award compact English dictionary") truly exist, or is information truly non-existent?

2. Does the believer of "a belief", require knowledge of that, upon which the "belief" is founded?

3. Does "faith" (using one's preferred definition) truly exist, or is "faith" truly non existent?

1. I would argue that information exists because we as humans, effect decisions, based on information, that address causal factors when we wish to create an effect that benefits us in some way.

2. I would argue that no, knowledge in the epistemological meaning is not required. Knowledge of the information conveyed in [1] would be required so that a belief could be formed.

3. I would argue that 'faith' exists.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Traders incorporating technical analysis into their chosen methodology, will typically select some preferred indicators, for inclusion within their toolkit.

Prior to employment of such tools, it may prove beneficial to first acquaint oneself with the tools' strengths and limitations.
What are the strengths of one's chosen indicators?
Which market conditions/contexts are more favourable?
And which market conditions are less so?

You would certainly expect that traders would do so. I would however argue that it is not necessary, to trade [whether successfully or not] that they do so.

jog on
duc