I don't get it sqlinjection. You don't believe in a God because you say there's no evidence? You have problems with them compartmentalizing their ideas, seeing it as irrational?Fine. I agree. But technical analysis has no evidence for it whatsoever. It is as popular as it is incoherant, I can't find two tech analysts that agree on the same interpretation of data or who can distinguish between real data and randomly generated data.Note to non stock market familiar newbies: Technical analysis is this numerology religion on the stock market that says you can use prior information on prices to make future predication.This doesn't sound so bad as first.Except it's been practiced for centuries and I cannot find any evidence that it works. Neither can most economists. It sound right. It is wrong, so far as we can tell.Now, when I quiz technical analysts on this before, then they get mad and say I also belong to a religion: the efficient market hypothesis religion.But you know, even though it is true that EMH cannot be proven to be true, at least EMH people are able to make certain kinds of predictions (not about making profits, but things like reaction times to information) and by and large they are shown to be broadly correct.So, that to me is more scientific, being able to make a prediction and see if the results fit the idea.I'm not claiming EMH is everything, not everything is explicable by it, but it is a powerful explanation for the big picture, much like evolutionary biology explains most, but not quite all, of specialization of species. Technical analysis seems equivalent to Lamarckian evolution to me.But since I like to pretend I've an open mind, I'll give you a shot at arguing why technical analysis is a real thing and not a pseudoscience.