[lutusp]

> That's an easy claim to make when you simply dismiss anyone who succeeds as random chance.

I never said this anywhere. You're confusing the practice of science with a blanket statement I never made. Pretend to be a scientist -- prove me wrong. Locate where I said what you claim I said.

> Yes there is, however I don't believe it's been adequately proven to be impossible.

Oh, great -- "proven to be impossible". Before you go on, learn about the impossibility of proving a negative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Quote: "Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others ..."

Remember -- all I have ever said is that the possibility of a chance outcome cannot, must not, be dismissed, and to a scientist, it is the first possibility to be considered, not the last.

> That's not damning evidence, merely circumstantial.

What? According to the scientific rules of evidence, the burden of evidence is not mine to prove that a winning stock picking strategy does not exist (i.e. prove a negative), the burden is on others to prove that it does.

[gnaritas]

> I never said this anywhere. You're confusing the practice of science with a blanket statement I never made.

Poorly worded, I wasn't claiming you said it, I was saying you could claim it and you would because you consider it the null hypothesis.

> Before you go on, learn about the impossibility of proving a negative:

I don't need to research Russell's teapot, I'm well aware, that was a poorly thought out statement on my part is all. I didn't mean to ask you to prove a negative.

> Remember -- all I have ever said is that the possibility of a chance outcome cannot, must not, be dismissed, and to a scientist, it is the first possibility to be considered, not the last.

It's not being dismissed. The issue is whether it's just chance; that Buffet's disciples have also done consistently well disputes the null hypothesis. Please actually read what Buffet has to say[1], he's not stupid and he's not ignoring the null hypothesis.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-efficient-m...