Point well taken. He is a great trader. I didn't want to show any disrespect for his trading abilities with my remarks. By the way he can think as well... But he's using the word dichotonomy for things that do not belong together anyway, well sucks...
Don't you think that developing any other philisophy for any other possible "usage"one might find for herself is just as important ? What makes the "trading " attitude so different?
To the man with a hammer all problems are nails. Just use the tools you brung with you as long as they work. KIDS
I'm a swing trader only simple tools are required. If it ain't going up. Don't buy it. If it quits going up. Sell it. Don't be concerned with maximizing profits. Let the other guy get his. Just you and your chart and a few simple tools are required. Always in is not an option. Right now don't fight the obvious trend. Haven't looked today. Are we still trying to bounce off that low? My weakness.
In general, the point about learning philosophy is understanding there can be many uses to ideas, and that different ideas for particular uses will have different merits and downsides. The tendency of course is that these ideas are concerned with fundamental things like ethics, metaphysics, politics, epistemology, etc. But anybody who develops or learns a strategy with critical thinking is doing philosophy to some extent. The critical thinking part is what I think is important, not necessarily the particular philosophy or strategy one develops by using it.
By denying any possibility of verification while maintaining the possibility of falsification. Karl Popper argued that there was a logical assymetry between those two judgments since you can't verify a universal claim by refering to finite experience but you can conclusively falsify an existing universal law through a single experience. Reflexivity argues that we change the world we're trying to understand, by understanding it. This problem of recursion leads Soros to falsify the obtainability of absolute knowledge.
I understand, but this is a circular agrument of Soros. If you know that you will not know, this is knowledge as well. Karl Popper was much more accurate with the formulation of his theory.What did Soros mean with absolute knowledge? Does it exist at all? Edit: By the way the ideas of Soros seem to be equivalent to the problems of quantum physics.
Ferdinand's explanation is bang on. gucci - I think you'd have to distinguish between how people plan to do things and how they do them in the real world in this case. Soros is not supposed to be perfectly aligned and logical, especially when hes dealing with reflexive and asymmetrical topics, as well as trying to educate people who don't know about reflexivity about the concept at the same time. Its being dumbed down for the everyman. I could write a journal that plans on trading and not trade... or I could trade with a very general thesis based on risk aversion and do well because other people thesis' about the Market are so violently optimistic or pessimistic. In this sense, I buy when risk is cheap and sell it when it's expensive. I assume this is how Soros makes money, at least in theory.