1. Can the indicator be expected to perform favourably in all conceivable market conditions/contexts (i.e. universally)?
2. If not, which conditions/contexts require alternative tools, or avoidance?
3. How might one, identify the unfavourable conditions/contexts early, so that an alternative tool, or evacuation, may be quickly effected?
1. It seems easier to go back to what constitutes an argument.
People are making statements which lead to a reasoned conclusion.
2. If their statement (premise in this case) is not supported by their evidence then they cannot arrive at a sound conclusion.
3. The construction of the argument has nothing to do with belief.
4. 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.
Arguments will be either deductive or inductive.1. In general, I agree with you. However the nature of this thread is abstract and attempting to universalise the concepts. Thus, an 'argument', which is very specific, while it could be made [with some difficulty] would possibly bog down even more than this discussion already has.
An argument in which we move from one idea that is known [proven] to be true to the inferential move, whereby we move from that first fact to a second idea, that can also be judged a fact, based on the strength and force of the first fact [idea] is how I prefer to argue, however, not all do or can.
When we deal with faith, we enter a fuzzy territory where as Cynic states, the absence of proof, is not proof of absence.
2. Agreed re. [1] but, as I said, it gets fuzzy.
3. I suppose it depends on what that 'belief' is founded on. A proven fact...then belief is acceptable. On a statement of faith...in the context of an argument, not a strong place to be, but on a faith basis, belief will [likely] occur.
4. The strength of the proving evidence that established in the first instance a fact as a fact, is important. Obviously evidence can take many forms.
jog on
duc
Note that there does exist a logical flaw in the methodology.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].
If I have understood correctly, I counter argue, that the level of confidence in 'belief' is not the critical issue here.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.
Some unusual language has been used in these examples as philosophy is the realm which includes logic.The critical issue is, not so much the validity (or lack thereof) of the philosophy being contested, but the question of which tools might be appropriately employed for validity testing.
1. Arguments will be either deductive or inductive.
2. If you are dealing with information unique to an individual - ie information which is beyond reasonable measure - it holds value to the individual and whoever wishes to accept it. It may at best be a weak inductive argument.
The nature of an argument depends on the premises.A deductive argument moves from the universal to the particular: therefore the universal must be a true fact for any inferences to be true. This is the [synthetic] a priori.
I can only say that it would not be a sound conclusion to draw. In a legal sense, would you say it was beyond reasonable doubt?A probability, while not 'the' truth, can be sufficient as a proof.
1. The nature of an argument depends on the premises.
2. The premises may well be true, but they may only provide grounds for the conclusion, ie a more likely outcome (probability), as was demonstrated in the examples above relating to Ms Brown.
3. I can only say that it would not be a sound conclusion to draw. In a legal sense, would you say it was beyond reasonable doubt?
Knowing that the English language has some nuances, additional consideration of word choice can sometimes prove beneficial.Some unusual language has been used in these examples as philosophy is the realm which includes logic.
Many might agree, however, I do not share your confidence.WRT to testing a premise, what matters is that it can be determined true.
I can agree that the argument is not valid when one or more of the premise/s are untrue.If a premise is not true, the conclusion must be unsound as the argument is not valid.
Methods chosen for testing truth, can be unsuited to the testing of some claims.The idea that "choice of tools" per se would be a determinant is unlikely. However, separate arguments would ensue if the means for testing truth were disputed.
I largely agree with your reasoning here as it appears to be along similar lines to mine.In strict terms, and using duc's bank robbery example where Ms Brown is charged with an offence, and witness statements from A, B & C (regarded as "facts" for the purpose of simplicity here), the prosecution might conclude his/her case by saying "and that person is standing in the dock". The reasonable deduction, however, was only in relation to a person with those characteristics as standing in the dock. Thus, a deductive argument in this example provides a probabilistic outcome for whom the robber might include.
So let's instead turn this into a inductive argument from the prosecution. Here are some real world example where statistics lead to initial prosecution, and later the verdicts being overturned.
Theoretical probability of guilt on grounds of gender/DOB/colour of car could be 240:1 or 10000:1, but if Ms Brown owns the only red car in town then the prosecution's case begins to look pretty solid.
In logic it would not however be considered "sound" as the statements supporting it remain probabilistic.
Methods chosen for testing truth, can be unsuited to the testing of some claims.
Eg. Consider the following claim:
"The only things that exist are those that are believed to exist."
Out of the many popular methods of contesting such a claim, what argument can be presented to challenge it?
Surely, any argument will by the time it is presented, be already known, else it could never be presented!
And if the presenter thinks the argument presented is dubious, the presenter is still presenting something that is believed to exist (ie. a dubious argument).
Every argument presented, is itself, at minimum, a correlation adding to the body of evidence supporting the claim it purports to challenge.
Care needs to be taken when choosing/devising methodology for probabilisic assessments. Some theoretical applications have been conveniently founded upon the premise of an even distribution of distinct qualities across the population under consideration.
Now let's consider how this knowledge might prove beneficial in analysis of financial markets.
Whilst a market for a chosen instrument is open, the price has the potential to move up, move down, or remain motionless.
So three qualities of price behaviour have been defined with respect to movement (or absence thereof).
1. Based upon the history of a financial instrument under consideration, is attribution of equal probability, to each of the above qualities justified?
2. Are larger moves to be treated as one move, or multiple consecutive moves, in a direction?
3. And what of immobility, is a period of same to be accounted as one, or multiple consecutive exhibitions of price behaviour?
4. Does time enter into consideration? If so, how is it to be apportioned in respect to each of the price behaviours?
5. Is the distribution of the price behaviours even?
6. How might this information be useful to a market strategist?
A premise which is clearly probabilistic can be true, eg. most dogs are not called Rex.1. I would argue that the nature of an argument is whether it is a deductive or inductive argument.
2. True, where the argument is inductive.
A deductive argument, [assuming a true premise, that is being reasoned from] that proceeds in aalid logical manner, must be true sound.
Not necessarily. For example, video footage of the robbery shows Ms Brown's face clearly, plus the gun she fired into the air. The stolen money and a gun was found in Ms Brown's red car. It was in fact found by police who had raced to the scene immediately an alarm was set off. Serial numbers on the stolen money proved it had only arrived that morning and was not for release that day. Rifling on the round dug from the ceiling proved the gun belonged to Ms Brown. Gun powder residue found on Ms Brown's gloves as she entered the car matched a subsequent round fired from the same gun by ballistic and forensic experts. Capping all this off was a signed confession which went into copious detail regarding her motives, planning, and execution.3. Correct. And legal proof is based upon an inductive argument. You have the crime, which is the effect or outcome, you are reasoning backwards to elicit the cause [whodunnit].
There may exist a very subtle distinction, between that and my earlier wording of the argument.You are simply repeating the same argument as previously: and the answer to that is also still the same: that something believed [in faith] that cannot be proven and cannot be disproven, simply remains an item of faith.
Whilst we persist with our current choice of tools, I am tempted to agree.There is no getting out of the rabbit hole.
* I would qualify that by saying on present knowledge. As knowledge increases, some conundrums are resolved.
Logic does not have an alternative here, so if you were to maintain that viewpoint it becomes impossible for you to be treated coherently."WRT to testing a premise, what matters is that it can be determined true."
Many might agree, however, I do not share your confidence.
Scientists often devise experiments in their efforts to disprove hypotheses.
Some might say that falsification is an equal, or perhaps even paramount consideration.
Others might argue that falsification equates to proof of a hypothesis that is an inverted form of the hypothesis to which falsification is applied.
Information overload, but this is same stock universe, same time period, using different system code (my Amibroker interpretation of Nick Radge's "Weekend Trend Trader").
Again, also remember trading the "optimal" = "most aggressive" number of positions may give you max theoretical returns but also DRASTICALLY increase your Risk of Ruin (i.e. chance of blowing your account, particularly in the first 2 years).
Suggested reading:
http://bettersystemtrader.com/riskofruin/
View attachment 92083
View attachment 92084
The beauty of being self employed is that you can do it which ever way you like
Personally I wouldn't/don't do it off CAR/MDD alone.
I like to know what the MDD is in percentage terms to see if I can handle it. I like to see what it is/was through the GFC period, starting in 2006 so the system has a chance to get fully invested and then going through 08 and out the other side.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?