"totally scientific" I don't know what it means. You are rigourous or you are not. Or you just enter a sect. Technical Analysis as a fundation is totally stupid my equations proves it: there is no so supposed psychology of crowd driving the market it is the contrary that is rational in fact an economic nobel prize has already said it that the market can be easily manipulated because of real time. the psycho myth is sprreaded to hide the reality to people. I have a scientific paper studying the non-effeciency of market on intraday level, they list hypothesis one of them is manipulation of market but they just fear to take the hypothesis into account so they just discarded it. This is due to fear and this is normal since academic research is financed by the financial institutions which have interest to make people believe the market is free whereas it is as free as a communist market the only difference is that they hide it haha !
Nevertheless academic research is coming little by little to see the truth - although they are still far - one reason as I said they are constrained by the financial power - as one can read for example in "The World According to Nassim Taleb" © 1996--Derivatives Strategy http://www.gsm.uci.edu/~jorion/oc/ntaleb.htm DS: Where do you think research in the financial markets is heading? What's valuable and what's not? NT: Financial economics has been extremely successful at melding the math with economic insight. This is providing traders with better understanding of derivatives pricing. My motto is that the markets follow the path that hurts the highest number of dynamic hedgers. It was exciting to read a mathematical proof of it by Grossman and Zhou in the latest Journal of Finance. We are having less success with the frenetic financial engineering efforts, with a lot of mathematical acrobatics, but a hollow ring.