An exact science is any field of science capable of accurate quantitative expression or precise predictions and rigorous methods of testing hypotheses, especially reproducible experiments involving quantifiable predictions and measurements. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, as well as parts of biology, psychology, and the social sciences and TRADING can be considered as exact sciences in this sense.
Bear in mind that one expects the scientific method of cyclically observing, measuring, hypothesizing and testing to converge on a viable compact stationary theory. Trading doesn't always cooperate.
I came out with a spreadsheet, where I quantified that if FXI & INP finished above or below their target prices, there's a 60% probability that SPY will gap up or down the following day. So, there's a 40% failure rate. The problem with these technicians is they generally don't give failure rates. Like this Hindenburg Omen, for instance, "Oh my God! The market's gonna crash!"
Psychology and other "social sciences" are nowhere near exact sciences. Since trading involves human behavior and variables which cannot always be foreseen, let alone exactly how they will be weighed by the market's participants at that particular time in conjunction with all the other variables then at play, it is not a pure, exact science. You cannot even establish a legitimate probability distribution with numeric specificity insofar as future price action is concerned. Any specificity is limited to frequency distribution of past price behavior. There can be a meaningful difference between the two for the reasons I just cited. With a true probability distribution, you can measure risk precisely. Without one, the outcome is rather more uncertain. If trading were an exact science then you should be able to predict with precision and accordingly trade quite large in relation to your account size. Do you? I would hope not, because uncertainty requires a larger margin for error than probability. I wouldn't confuse reasonable reliability over time with exactitude if I were you.
The uncertainty principle prohibits exact science. The equivalence principle can be only confirmed to Planck scale theoretically and we are way before that. What distinguishes science from arts is the ability to falsify theories. Based on the classification, modern Biology is certainly falsifiable and it is a science. If we find the remains of a rabbit from 10 million years ago there goes evolution theory down the drain. Psychology is not a falsifiable theory because experiments cannot be reproduced due to hidden variables that are unknown. The same holds with all social sciences, history (you cannot go back and repeat the experiment) and other subjects of similar nature and content. System trading is a falsifiable science because you can easily test theories and systems. Trading system development is an art and a science. Trading in general is not a science because discretionary methods cannot be tested since they may involve feelings, insticts, etc.
But general principles remain the same in any science. Trading in general is not a science because discretionary methods cannot be tested since they may involve feelings, insticts, etc. [/QUOTE] And yes, you can measure feelings, instincts Which is the small chapter in the 'Science'
There are many viewpoints available. The above is one. It is unfortunate and the person(s) who operate from such a place get the consequences. They and I are satisfied with our differences. Recently, on LKL there was a discussion and kind of a debate on the universe and how people fit into it and the size of things. One person, a collegague of Hawkings, finally brought up some of the limitations the participants were facing. He simply stated how important it was to not depend upon the limits of telescopes when a person could think about things beyond observation. Why don't people think further than the above cited post? It doesn'y matter but, on the otherhand it is possible to have a noise and anomoally free view of the markets. Why not step past the limitations pointed out by Hawkings colleague? The reason is, and it applies to the poster above, is that it is simply not possible for such a person so to do. After "who cares" what still remains to be considered? For some of us it is the non probabilitistic nature of the markets. this is a place where certainty rules and it is only necessary to operate under sufficiency conditions. In the foreseeable future better telescopes will be deployed. At present we do see as far into the expanding universe as far as the boundary where the universe is expanding beyond the speed of light. Its a monochromatic boundary as expected. Using probability is like using a telescope to see the markets. To see where something is created out of nothing doesn't require a telescope, therefore, the telescope is set aside. In trading, why even begin with probability when it is not required? A person can glance back through history and see the famous operating and that probability was not even considered. At some point the tools that extended human reach did come into being, however. The telescope allowed mankind to go as far as possible. We see the light coming back from the boundary where the expansion of the universe is at the speed of light. As a person looks into the limits of the market, he finds that the probability tool is not part of the examination. Certainty, in the absence of noise and anomalies prevails. We were all lucky we did not have to use probabilistic theory or continuous functions part of mathematics. Science is what is required to examine the markets. If a person discovers the pieces that make up the market, then why can't he put the pieces together. Look at the periodic table for a few moments. Is there noise or anomalies? Do you know how the ingredients of an egg become the ingredients of a chick? No, how could you? An egg and a chick have different ingredients. Why is there no connection between the market's offer and probability? How IS the Scientific Method used to examine the market? For sure, it is NOT done with probabilistic information theory. Exact science is done.