NEU chart, page-1151

Mor(e) grim(m) comments from Ed.

"or proving/disproving the existence of God"

This is precisely my issue with chartists. They try to give it a veneer of scientific credibility by euphemistically calling it "technical analysis" but
for an hypothesis to be in anyway scientific, it should be capable of being falsified.

Example, a recent post from the old slickster @slick : "the charts are indicating that a roll-over is taking place and the highs that your seeing may be it for a period..............Now obviously if the company comes out with some wild news, all of the above bets are off."

That statement is impossible to falsify. It's the same airy fairy language fortune tellers have been using for millennia.
If the SP goes down Slick claims his title as Soothsayer extraordinaire, if the SP rises it's because of good news from the company. Slick gets his cake and eats it too.

If the cultists, err I mean chartists, want to be taken seriously, start using percentages or confidence levels like any scientific research does....ABC has 60% chance of occurring, XYZ has 30% chance of occurring. Now that has a modicum of scientific credibility. and allows for accountability.

Ni Dieu ni maître Ed.