The PTM has all the hallmarks of "real" science, using either a scientists' definition or that of the Daubert Court. From a scientist's perspective, it is a functional paradigm, serving as a working model. The practitioners in the field are engaged in "clean-up," for example, deciding which acceleration factor best fits observed data. Under the Daubert test, the PTM will assist the trier of fact, has been subjected to peer review (unlike the major critique), and has acceptable rates of error and general acceptance. Testifying experts may disagree as to which acceleration factor to use, but that is merely fair ground for impeachment and crossexamination. The testimony should be admitted and left to the jury to decide.
Brian P. Murray, The Proportionate Trading Model: Real Science or Junk Science, 52 Clev. St. L. Rev. 391 (2004-2005)