So, about this technical analysis thing

[Vitalik Buterin]

[1715201846]

1715201846

[1715201846]

1715201846

[elux]

First I note that technical analysts would likely deem their craft an art, not a science.
Secondly, that analysis is used to produce hypotheses on market behavior.
These hypotheses yield predictions. (Price movement one way or another on whatever basis.)
The basis for these hypotheses concern us little, as we need only be concerned with the outcomes of the predictions.
Outcomes are readily surveyed by experiment in which you place a position on the market.
So, we see that the predictions of technical analysts are falsified a great number of times every day.  

[gewure]

you know, popper himself was not on top of the scientific enlightenment of his time..

rather he spend his days propagating scientific positivism. like as if enlightenment and industrialisation never failed and cultureindustry does not exist..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism_dispute

Frankfuter Schule, FTW!!

[elux]

rather he spend his days propagating scientific positivism.

You are wrong.

[gewure]

rather he spend his days propagating scientific positivism.

You are wrong.

i thinkt the fact popper and his philosophical work remained in the state of positivist-though although he criticized it, is the number one reason for him beeing criticized by the Franfurter School Dudes.

so, to be exact, in a postmodern tradition of discourse, in which we remain nowadays, you are indeed right and wrong. and so am i. 

[elux]

i thinkt the fact popper and his philosophical work remained in the state of positivist-though although he criticized it, is the number one reason for him beeing criticized by the Franfurter School Dudes.

You seem to be mistaken, as were they. (But you are in very good company.)  

Stephen Hawking is a recent high profile advocate of positivism, at least in the physical sciences. In The Universe in a Nutshell (p. 31) he writes:

Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others.

However, the claim that Popper was a positivist is a common misunderstanding that Popper himself termed the "Popper legend."

In fact, he developed his views in stark opposition to and as a criticism of positivism and held that scientific theories talk about how the world really is, not, as positivists claim, about phenomena or observations experienced by scientists.

In the same vein, continental philosophers like Theodore Adorno and Jürgen Habermas regarded Popper as a positivist because of his alleged devotion to a unified science.

However, this was also part of the "Popper legend"; Popper had in fact been the foremost critic of this doctrine of the Vienna Circle, critiquing it, for instance, in his "Conjectures and Refutations"

So there.

so, to be exact, in a postmodern tradition of discourse, in which we remain nowadays, you are indeed right and wrong. and so am i.

I could still be wrong, but we shouldn't both be right, and yet disagree.

[gewure]

i thinkt the fact popper and his philosophical work remained in the state of positivist-though although he criticized it, is the number one reason for him beeing criticized by the Franfurter School Dudes.

You seem to be mistaken, as were they. (But you are in very good company.)  

Stephen Hawking is a recent high profile advocate of positivism, at least in the physical sciences. In The Universe in a Nutshell (p. 31) he writes:

Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others.

However, the claim that Popper was a positivist is a common misunderstanding that Popper himself termed the "Popper legend."

In fact, he developed his views in stark opposition to and as a criticism of positivism and held that scientific theories talk about how the world really is, not, as positivists claim, about phenomena or observations experienced by scientists.

In the same vein, continental philosophers like Theodore Adorno and Jürgen Habermas regarded Popper as a positivist because of his alleged devotion to a unified science.

However, this was also part of the "Popper legend"; Popper had in fact been the foremost critic of this doctrine of the Vienna Circle, critiquing it, for instance, in his "Conjectures and Refutations"

So there.

so, to be exact, in a postmodern tradition of discourse, in which we remain nowadays, you are indeed right and wrong. and so am i.

Oh please. Do not seek refuge in postmodernism! I could be wrong, but we shouldn't both be right, and still disagree.

hey! you edited that! i liked the prior version of your answer much more

i have been ironic i rather plead for a progress over postmodernism than a retreat into it. in fact i think there is no postmodernity in reality, just a broken modernity, if you understand.

if modernism is the thesis and postmodernism the antithesis than i call for the synthesis

[elux]

hey! you edited that! i liked the prior version of your answer much more

...Sorry.  I didn't mean to be mean, and then go and be a dick about it.  

I'm in the middle of reading the magnificient Logik der Forschung, and it seems abundantly clear that Mr Popper is not much of a positivist,
he doesnt like positivism, or agree with it, in fact he thinks positivism should find somewhere quiet and die.

Not to mention that the book was a successful attempt on its life.

So I got a little carried away on this issue.

[N12]

Tea Leaves Chart Analysis works.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63237.0