Technical Analysis is Pseudoscience?

in D.Buzz2 months ago

Seems technical analysis is a pseudoscience. I assumed it was an economic "soft science" like how researchers calculate the confidence level of a psychological study. Does @quackwatch kno...Oh, killed by scalar energy weapon. I forgot.

Sort:  

Congratulations @holovision! You received a personal badge!

Happy Hive Birthday! You are on the Hive blockchain for 3 years!

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking

Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!

Man, fuck this Simon guy 😂😂
I subscribe to one of his YouTube channels called Biographics. In this TA video this guy talks too much and rambles on for too long I can't really bring myself to listen to everything. But well, I agree TA is psuedoscience and stuff, it's also quite an economic soft science but isn't economic soft science a pseudo science?😂


Posted via proofofbrain.io

Technical analysis doesn't claim to be a science, and is thus not a pseudoscience. Also, this video is really difficult to watch.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Technical Analysis is a type of applied social psychology. Since TA deals with second-order effects, it doesn't get the moniker of "science" unless it can be used to reliably predict. So, you, TA isn't all that reliable so it gets called a pseudoscience.

Posted via D.Buzz

I get what you're trying to express but the wording isn't quite correct. The words "used to reliably predict" is something of a red herring. "Reliably predict" can be subjective because "reliably" can be "beyond expected statistical chance". If that infers predictions are accurate 51% of the time or better then in pseudoscience someone can cherry-pick the good examples, overvalue an outlier and run the experiment long enough to get 52% accuracy and then stop with a small sample.

The words "used to make testable predictions" would be better because it emphasizes the falsifiability of the scientific method.

I'll concede the looseness in the "reliable predict". If somebody is cherry-picking data then the results are invalid so what it contributes can't be considered science. But, I would like to make the distinction between testable predictions used in the scientific method and the body of knowledge created from following the scientific method. wrt prediction, my meaning refers to being able to use the body of knowledge to predict. On that, TA fails currently.