Sunday, August 23, 2009
TA as science
In order for TA to be accepted as a valid scientific discipline, its methodology must be validated via the scientific method. This does not mean that in the absence of such validation the discipline cannot be used or investigated, it just means that until that happens the discipline will be subject to legitimate criticism as a pseudo-science.
In order for a particular technical pattern to be valid, it must be shown via the scientific method to work better than a random signal. In order for that to happen, the method must:
1) Be rigorously defined so that its application is uniform and repeatable;
2) Be demonstrated to work consistently better than a random signal, prospectively, without hindsight bias, in an experimental fashion that is repeatable by other practitioners.
It is in the attainment of these two objectives that the discipline of subjective TA is lacking.
In order for a particular technical pattern to be valid, it must be shown via the scientific method to work better than a random signal. In order for that to happen, the method must:
1) Be rigorously defined so that its application is uniform and repeatable;
2) Be demonstrated to work consistently better than a random signal, prospectively, without hindsight bias, in an experimental fashion that is repeatable by other practitioners.
It is in the attainment of these two objectives that the discipline of subjective TA is lacking.
# posted by MATT E @ 12:40 PM 
