… (We explain how this can happen at our seminars.) …
I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Thank you for that one!
Man oh man I wish someday you actually had a client, and as their account is hemorrhaging money you try to explain to them that they aren’t actually experiencing a drawdown. That "the proper proof of a drawdown occurs only when a position is exited."
Good stuff!
ps. “Evidence,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary is “testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion.” To determine whether a fact is “evidence,” therefore, one must first define what proof of a given claim would consist of. Then one must demonstrate that the fact, although inconclusive, contributes to such proof, i.e., strengthens the claim logically and thus moves the matter closer to a cognitive resolution. If one has no idea what the proof of a conclusion whould consist of - or if one holds that a proof of it is impossible - one has no means of deciding whether a given piece of information “tends to prove” it. If the terminus of a journey is undefined or unknowable, there is no way to judge whether one is moving toward it.
This is why there can be no such thing as “some evidence” in favor of an entity transcending nature and logic. The “evidence” in this context would be a stolen concept. Since nothing can ever qualify as a “proof” of such an entity, there is no way to identify any data as being a “part proof” of it, either. There is no way to validate such a notion as: “that which brings men closer to knowing the unknowable or proving the unprovable.”
“It is possible for man…” does not justify “It is possible that this man…” The latter claim depends on the individual involved and on the specific circumstances involved (hedging with options strategy used to maintain profitability of the open position etc.,). It must, therefore, be supported by data that are equally specific.
Like all cognitive claims, possibilities are asserted within a context. Should it change, the verdict must change accordingly: the initial possibility may be weakend (even erased), or it may be strengthened. If favorable evidence continues to be discovered, at a certain point the claim stops being merely “possible.” It becomes probable.
“Probable” indicates a higher range of the evidential continuum. A conclusion is “probable” if the burden of a substantial body of evidence, although still inconclusive, supports it. In this case, there are not merely “some” supporting data, but a relatively extensive amount, although these data have not yet reached the standard of proof. Because they have not, there are still objective grounds to remain in doubt about the final verdict.
Like possibilities, probabilities are asserted within a context and may be weakened or strengthened as it changes. If favorable evidence continues to be discovered, at some point the cognitive climax will be reached. The conclusion ceases to be a hypothesis and becomes knowledge. Such a conclusion is certain.
The concept of “certainty” designates knowledge from a particular perspective: it designates some complex items of knowledge considered in contrast to the transitional evidential states that precede them. (By extention, the term may be applied to all knowledge, perceptual and conceptual, to indicate that it is free of doubt.) A conclusion is “certain” when the evidence in its favor is conclusive; i.e., when it has been logically validated. At this stage, one has gone beyond “substantial” evidence. Rather, the total of the available evidence points in a single direction, and this evidence fulfills the standard of proof. In such a context, there is nothing to suggest even the possibility of another interpretation. There are, therefore, no longer any grounds for doubt.
Certainty, like possibility and probability, is contextual. It is a verdict reached within a definite framework of evidence, and it stands or falls with the evidence. The question is: within the total evidential context, are there any objective data to support these hypotheses? If there are not, none is admissible in any discussion of cognitive assessment; none qualifies as "possible."
There are all the flaws inherent in the assertion of the arbitrary.
Certainty is a contextual assessment, and in countless situations the context permits no other. Despite the claims of skeptics, doubt is not the human fate, with cognition being an unattainable ideal. Doubt, rationally exercised, is a temporary, transitional state, which is applicable only to (some) higher-level questions - and which itself expressesa cognitive judgment: that the evidence one has is still inconclusive. As such, doubt is made possible only by a vast context of knowledge in the coubter’s mind. The doubter must know both facts and logic; he must know the facts knnown so far - and also the means by which in principle his doubt is eventually to be removed, i.e., what else is required to reach full proof.
Doubt that is not arbitrary or pathological is a self-limiting condition, both in scope and in duration. It is not the norm of the mind but, at most, frequent stage on the road to the norm, which, when reached, ends it.
Is man capable of certainty? Since man has a faculty of knowledge and nonomniscience is no obstacle to its use, there is only one rational answer: certainly.
You want evidence of a draw-down? Close your brokerage account.
pps. A man who would throw away his work and thereby his life without cause, who would reject the universe on principle and embrace a zero for its own sake - such a man, would belong on the lowest rung of hell. His action would indicate so profound a hatred - of himself, of values, of reality - that he would have to be condemned by any human being as a monster. The moment he would announce his decision seriously he would be disqualified as an object of intellectual debate. One cannot argue with or about a walking corpse, who has just consigned himself to the void - the void of the nonconscious, the nonethical, the non-anything.
Ethics is conditional, i.e., concepts and thereby values are not intrinsic. But concepts, thereby values are not subjective, either. Concepts and thereby values are objective.
That’s a fine pollyanna bromide that you espouse, but as with any conceptual platitude it falls short on fact and long on philosophy.
Your play with words and attempts at humanizing what is purely finite science reminds me of those whose years of interaction with their pets results in anthropomorphism.
Just as with those pet owners, you’ve convinced yourself that your experience (all generated by you, I might add) justifies and supports you intellectually bankrupt conclusion.
Well, plainly… it doesn’t.
ppps. An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.
Axioms are self-evident; no argument can coerce a person who choses to evade them. One can show a man that identity is inescapable, but only by first accepting the fact that A is A (identity). One can show that existence is inescapable, but only by accepting and referring to existence. One can show that consciousness is inescapable, but only by accepting and using one’s consciousness. One cannot convince another person of anything until he accepts the axioms of existence, consiciousness and identity and its corollary, causality. Relying on these three axioms, one can establish their position as the foundation of all knowledge. But one cannot convince another person of this or anything until he accepts the axioms himself, on the basis of his own perception of reality. If he denies them, it is a mistake to argue about or even discuss the issue with him.
No one can think or perceive for another man. If reality, without your help, does not convince a person of the self-evident, he has abdicated reason and cannot be dealt with any further.
