You and I are talking about something different nor did I say numerology is science. Heck, I'm not even talking about numerology. Mark
I was using numerology as an example of a situation of maths having nothing to do with science. I was making the observation that publishing some maths does not confer scientific status. BTW this is neither pro or anti TA.
That's a narrow interpretation of "TA", to include the specific calculation of indicators but not including how to apply those indicators in an actual trading system. If you include mechanical trading rules in the field of TA, e.g. buy when the price crosses above the MA, sell when it falls below, then you have something concrete that can be tested and validated. It is those mechanical systems that never hold up to scrutiny (for whatever reason). To me the term TA includes both "raw" technical indicators and what you do with them. Any vague interpretation of the indicators (rather then hard rules) turns TA into something closer to fortune telling - junk science. Of course since the markets themselves are based on human behavior the idea that any hard and fast rules could ever be applied consistently to generate the same results is foolish. The market is the sum of the participants. You can't apply scientific analysis to something that is based on unpredictable human behavior to begin with.
I don't think that's universal, there are many profitable backtested TA systems. I could list several systems books whose authors have listed the full backtested results. Of course, backtesting is no future guarantee. I do think that Mark Brown, as well as several other system traders here on ET, would disagree with your statement.
hey mark, I have never seen TA taught at any accredited university. can you please post a link to such a course of study? thanks, surf
Well backtested doesnt really prove anything - the only thing that matters is forward testing. You are right though I was a little fast and loose there, I should have said no system stands up to public scrutiny because the act of making it public will universally destroy whatever edge it had. I am not disputing that there are successful private TA systems out there that do work - I'm simply addressing the title of this thread. You can never have a university study about a TA system because the act of having a public study of it will cause it to fail going forward. For an edge to exist it have to remain private or there has to be some other barrier to its widespread use to prevent everyone from exploiting it.
Ahh ok...I misunderstood and thought you were implying I was talking about numerology. I'm pro TA with more emphasis on all those other variables outside of TA. Mark
I don't think the issue raised by the person that started this thread is about what happens after TA is studied in an academic environment. The issue is if it deserves to be studied in an academic environment at a university along with other studies like economics, business administration, finance, accounting et cetera. I say YES. Mark
Well I know in my school it is a requiered course to take. It all the basics......doji, trend channels, etc. SOme oscillators. Tell you the truth, the class cost money... which I could save by going to investopidia and learning everything for free. Plus, I write for the school newspaper in the Technical Analysis section, and some students stated that they learned more from my aricles than they did in the class. Hmmmm....maybe the teacher is just nort that good????