Talk:Hindenburg Omen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Start | rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as High-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| Start | rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as High-importance on the importance scale |
In the conclusion section, the last sentence reads: "On the other hand there has never been a significant stock market decline in history, that was not preceded by a confirmed Hindenburg Omen."
"stock market decline in history" might be a little broad a claim, since referenced material only traces the indicator back to 1985. The indicator itself is based on the NYSE which hasn't existed as long as the stock markets in general, nor is the indicator valid on other markets as stated. 24.17.81.163 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting rid of the claim and replacing with something backed up by the sourceTicklemygrits 07:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to dig into this suspicion of "overfitting." HOs have strong predictive significance in terms of statistical correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlation), and the method used to derive HOs seems entirely consistent with the standard scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
I am not saying remove the comment on overfitting but it needs more explication; either substantiatation or refutation. As it stands, it merely serves as a drive-by potshot.
