>Roger Odisio:
>> ...
>> And I disagree with Laibman. Are you sure that's what he said? Did he
>> ever write that anywhere? Silly may be too kind of a word for such a
>> statement.
>No, it's quite correct. For an observation to refute a
>theory, there must be a theory as to why the observation is
>important and therefore refutes. As Einstein said, "theory
>tells us what we can observe." Phenomena must be ordered
>before they can mean anything. And so on.
Efficient market theory isn't really a "theory" in this sense -- it's an empirical claim about stock markets. There are numerous different and incompatible theories of the underlying "microstructure", most of which are at least consistent with "the efficient markets hypothesis".
dd
___________________________________________________________________________ _____
---------------------------------------------------------
This email is confidential to the ordinary user of the
e-mail address to which it was addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately on (44) 171 638 5858 and delete the message
from all locations in your computer. You should not copy
this email or use it for any purpose, or disclose its
contents to any person : to do so may be unlawful.
Email is an informal method of communication and is
subject to possible data corruption, either accidentally
or on purpose. Flemings is unable to exercise control
over the content of information contained in
transmissions made via the Internet. For these reasons
it will normally be inappropriate to rely on information
contained on email without obtaining written confirmation
of it.
----------------------------------------------------------