"History tangles the past with the present in a web of facts. Its practice is to treat things that exist here and now as thought they were concerned in the past and to use them in new composition designed to qeuip people to their trip into the future"
Source:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2081435?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
This actually says the opposite of what you think
What does it say?
Things that happened in the past happened for reasons (causality). If we know the causality, we can think about ("composition") how this can work in the future.
Note what it doesn't say: "We detect patterns and we blindly believe they will happen again".
To give you an example. Historically, if a knife get stuck in a heart, the person dies most of the time. If we know nothing about our bodies, the only tool we could use would be the correlation between "knife in heart" - "death". But since we aren't cavemen and we have good knowledge of the human body, we know **why** (the causality) the knife causes death. Huuuge difference. And here's a real-world
example of the fallacy.
And not just that the authors says: "Hey listen guys history has show us this has happened in the past to create bubbles, since I know that correlation does not mean causation and because I know history has its epistemiollogical issues, I have another argument to add that it is there is no cashflow in the cryptos furthermore using the mathematical model of discounted cash flow model that it is used to evaluate assets it makes them overvalued just like that happens in the bubbles"
And I said, where's the statistical research to show that wrt to type I and type II errors? And there were no data presented.
All you keep repeating is that you DO NOT understand the method he used to analyze the problem,
At this point, if you really think that I don't understand the epistemology and methodology, after all I've written about it, then what can I say
you keep saying it is imperfect (which we already know)
Insane - not imperfect. Huge difference. See below why it's so huge a difference.
but he ads another argument to back up the imperfection in his fisrt assumption, but you just pointed the flaw in the method (history is imperfect as a predictive science) but there is no other way to analyze this things.
As an analogy, think of it like this:
At this point you're saying "ok, the food tastes bad but he added ketchup!". While I said from the start, "this isn't food, it is literally cow excrements". There's no need to argue about ketchup in cow excrements. Actually, ketchup is the only thing we could validly discuss - because that's at least edible.
Nop, what we are trying to find out are the CAUSES of the bubble and how to identify it
Now THAT's exactly what should be going on. The whole problem is that this is not happening at all in said article
There is not model strong enought that takes into account the human behaviour (crazy human behaviour I should add)
You seem to be totally unaware of statistics in research, how it works, what its results can tell us and why that is so. I suggest you start with Dowdy's "Statistics for Research" for a (kinda) gentle introduction.
and I talked about it in my argument, and having a patter it is not enough "correlation does not mean causation"
Of course it doesn't. The only reason you see correlations around you is that those are the "catchy" things that can get published in popular magazines. No sane scientist does correlations to prove something. As I said, you need to study the basics of statistical methodology in research.
As I said, I see intellectually honesty in your answers that is why responded
Well, the feeling is mutual. I wouldn't be responding if I thought you were trolling. I genuinely believe that you have the capacity to see the errors and what's missing is only the teacher.
Houses nor cars are commodities source and defintion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity
First of all, housing is commoditized. But, there's no reason to argue semantics. Replace the house and car to something else that's not ambiguous. Same argument stands perfectly well.
