Page 1 of 1

Russell's Teapot

PostPosted: 02/02/09 at 18:37:26
by ataloss
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Re: Russell's Teapot

PostPosted: 02/02/09 at 19:10:20
by gw
One of many differences between Bertrand Russell and JW Russell (and hocus): ?the former assumed that intelligent people would understand the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam and the latter routinely use it or arguments from personal incredulity.

Re: Russell's Teapot

PostPosted: 02/02/09 at 21:36:12
by ogrecat
I wonder if the dynamic duo are also anti: evolution, germ theory, heliocentrism...

Re: Russell's Teapot

PostPosted: 02/03/09 at 08:34:25
by hocus2009
The argument that Russell makes should be applied to Passive Investing.

What reason is there to believe that it is not necessary to adjust one's stock allocation in response to big price changes (when the risk of stocks obviously becomes much greater)?

The only justification for this belief that has ever been put forward is that there are academic studies showing that short-term timing doesn't work. But the same data that shows that short-term timing has never worked also shows that long-term timing has always worked. Why is the data good for making the one point and not the other?

If you reject the data altogether, there is no reason to believe in Passive Investing.

If you put stock in what the data says, you are logically required to reject Passive Investing because the data shows that long-term timing has always worked.

There is no rational case for the idea that it is not necessary to change your stock allocation when stock prices go to insanely dangerous levels.

There are no rational arguments for Passive Investing. Marketing slogans appeal to the emotions, not to human reason.

Rob

Re: Russell's Teapot

PostPosted: 02/03/09 at 14:04:38
by gw
I wonder if the dynamic duo are also anti: evolution, germ theory, heliocentrism...
Don't bother asking, because you'll never get an answer.

Re: Russell's Teapot

PostPosted: 02/03/09 at 17:25:03
by ataloss
wonder how big a telescope you would need to see the lucky VII

Re: Russell's Teapot

PostPosted: 01/12/14 at 12:53:56
by DRiP_Guy
hocus2009 wrote:What reason is there to believe that it is not necessary to adjust one's stock allocation in response to big price changes (when the risk of stocks obviously becomes much greater)?

There is no rational case for the idea that it is not necessary to change your stock allocation when stock prices go to insanely dangerous levels.

There are no rational arguments for Passive Investing.
Rob


Such a waste of time and such a negative impact on the lives around them these two have had for anyone unfortunate enough to have been in their sphere, and to what purpose? None. What a shame.... for those others.