loico prediction was again correct – and “Science” magazine officially abdicates

We apol­o­gize to all those of our read­ers who could not care less about the stock mar­ket for writ­ing once again about – the stock mar­ket. We do so because, today, our sec­ond if much less far-reach­ing mar­ket call turned out to be correct.

We had said on very ear­ly June 5, EST, at a time when the S&P 500 futures were hov­er­ing at 3120 points, that we had reen­tered the mar­ket because the “short-term bal­ance of risks, in our view, judg­ing by the market’s observ­able micro-behav­ior, con­tin­ues to be tilt­ed towards the upside”, so that we “would not be entire­ly sur­prised if the S&P 500 were to rise anoth­er 200 points, to about 3325, fair­ly quick­ly from here.” We had added: “This kind of assess­ment by a trad­er is a pre­dic­tion in the fol­low­ing sense: Either the mar­ket will quick­ly move in the hypoth­e­sized direc­tion, or, if it does not and pos­si­bly even does the oppo­site, the entire con­stel­la­tion will still prove such that we will be able to exit the posi­tion tak­en with­out a loss, because the mar­ket will revis­it the point at which we entered.”

The mar­ket did move very quick­ly in the hypoth­e­sized direc­tion, as we have pre­vi­ous­ly not­ed, yet made it only a lit­tle over half-way to the indi­cat­ed price tar­get, at which point, after the FED state­ment last Wednesday, we observed unfa­vor­able mar­ket micro-behav­ior, prompt­ing us to take prof­its and, even­tu­al­ly, reen­ter some­what low­er. The mar­ket has since slumped – when cal­cu­lat­ed from its high – by about 9 per­cent, only to then do exact­ly what we had said it would do in case the pos­i­tive case would not (ful­ly) come to fruition: It com­fort­ably revis­it­ed our offi­cial­ly stat­ed (re)entry point of 3120 points dur­ing today’s trad­ing ses­sion, enabling us to take those chips off the table that we want­ed removed. We are left with some prof­it, less than we had aimed for, but an addi­tion­al prof­it nonethe­less. “Gain – or no loss, result­ing, on aver­age, in gains over time”, we had said: “Trading is that ‘sim­ple’ in the end.”

Why do we keep com­ing back to this subject?

To an extent, because it is a com­mon belief in the aca­d­e­m­ic com­mu­ni­ty that “the stock mar­ket can­not be prof­itably timed” and that stock mar­ket behav­ior, espe­cial­ly in the short term, be unpre­dictable. By repeat­ed­ly talk­ing in pre­dic­tive terms about finan­cial mar­ket behav­ior we wish to demon­strate that true sci­ence, rely­ing on log­i­cal rea­son­ing to deter­mine like­ly caus­es of observed phe­nom­e­na – instead of mere­ly “observ­ing phe­nom­e­na” and will­ful­ly dis­re­gard­ing relat­ed such phe­nom­e­na – , and to then make pre­dic­tions from the entire­ty of observed phe­nom­e­na, can – and must – be clean­ly dis­tin­guished from pseu­do-sci­ence that has tak­en a strong hold in recent years in the two for­mer­ly lead­ing sci­en­tif­ic jour­nals, “Science” and “Nature”.

For those who are not also sub­scribers to “Science” – and we know that some of you are – , or who may have missed it, here is the recent dec­la­ra­tion of intel­lec­tu­al bank­rupt­cy by the “Science” editor:

“The evi­dence of sys­temic racism in sci­ence per­me­ates this nation. Why are so few Science authors from his­tor­i­cal­ly black col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties? Why are the sci­en­tif­ic areas stud­ied more fre­quent­ly by peo­ple of col­or con­tin­u­ous­ly under­fund­ed by the gov­ern­ment? Why do stu­dents who are peo­ple of col­or have to remind soci­ety that they are almost nev­er taught by some­one who looks like them? Why has the United States failed to update its ways of teach­ing sci­ence when data show that peo­ple of col­or learn bet­ter with more inclu­sive methods?”

We refuse to even con­sid­er the pos­si­bil­i­ty that those who are sub­scribers to loico might not notice the com­plete absence of any log­ic in this para­graph, a para­graph that com­mences with an extreme­ly far-reach­ing claim and con­tin­ues – and con­cludes – with rhetor­i­cal ques­tions con­tain­ing state­ments about obser­va­tions, ques­tions that would first have to be thor­ough­ly answered, pon­der­ing all avail­able infor­ma­tion, in order to be able to sup­port the ini­tial claim – let alone that one would cer­tain­ly be at a loss to come to terms with, for exam­ple, a demand that stu­dents be “taught by some­one who looks like them”.

And then the “Science” edi­tor out­right “outs” him­self as what would appear as an entire­ly irra­tional racist:

“The first step is for sci­ence and sci­en­tists to say out loud that they have ben­e­fit­ed from, and failed to acknowl­edge, white supremacy.”

Again, no evi­dence pro­vid­ed (in case this were pos­si­ble with regard to an unde­fined con­cept, of course). The sci­ence edi­tor seems to assume that every­one “knows” that the state­ments con­tained in his rhetor­i­cal ques­tions be true. Yet every­one (and his dog) also knows that “yel­low” peo­ple – peo­ple of Asian descent – are sig­nif­i­cant­ly over-rep­re­sent­ed in sci­ence. And, at least to our knowl­edge, “yel­low” is not “white”.

There is some­thing seri­ous­ly awk­ward in invok­ing skin col­or when talk­ing about human beings, of course, but even more so when it’s being done in an illog­i­cal way.

One has a very hard time imag­in­ing that the “Science” edi­tor has ever made a sin­gle cent in the stock mar­ket, at least by employ­ing sci­en­tif­ic meth­ods of analy­sis. Because a “sci­en­tist” he clear­ly is not. What he is, we do not know, but we har­bor a sus­pi­cion (or two), nur­tured by what he goes on to say after effec­tive­ly call­ing “sci­en­tists” “white suprema­cists”, what­ev­er the lat­ter expres­sion may mean, entire­ly unde­fined as the “Science” edi­tor leaves it:

“And then … sci­en­tists final­ly need to … make space for … peo­ple of col­or to lead lab­o­ra­to­ries that pub­lish great sci­ence and pro­duce influ­en­tial scientists”.

Note that “sci­en­tists” need to, in the words of this indi­vid­ual, “make space” for “peo­ple of col­or”. This indi­vid­ual, we have to con­clude, in his sub­con­scious mind that pro­duces log­i­cal struc­tures called phras­es, not only sup­pos­es but sees fit to pub­lish in one of the for­mer­ly most emi­nent sci­en­tif­ic pub­li­ca­tions this world pos­sessed that “sci­en­tists” and “peo­ple of col­or” fall into non-over­lap­ping categories.

While the true answer to all “race”-related ques­tions can only be giv­en by chaos the­o­ry, not by abstract either/or-rea­son­ing, the word­ing employed by the “Science” edi­tor clear­ly match­es even the most thought- and clue­less def­i­n­i­tion of “racist”.

“Science”, it appears, is stone-dead.

Long live science.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on pinterest
Share on vk
Share on linkedin
Share on xing
Share on google
Share on email
Share on print
“The delta vari­ant is like a com­mon cold, but …”: Matteo Bassetti, noto infet­tivol­o­go tele­vi­si­vo: “La vari­ante Delta è come un sem­plice raf­fred­dore ma sono con­tento se si usa per fare ter­ror­is­mo per vac­cinare la gente!” Un medico che sposa la strate­gia del ter­rore deve essere denun­ci­a­to e radi­a­to dall’Albo dei medici. pic.twitter.com/YnPEvv0Mhe — RadioSavana (@RadioSavana) August 3, 2021 Why would one want to get vac­ci­nat­ed against the com­mon cold (which coro­n­avirus­es have caused prob­a­bly since humans exist)? A pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine who states such illog­i­cal­i­ty vio­lates his hip­po­crat­ic oath, and not only. He is respon­si­ble for phys­i­cal harm that vac­ci­na­tion caus­es
What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.

Leave a comment / join the discussion

What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.