I've been trying to wrap my head around the massive difference in opinion between quantitative investors on one hand, and value investors on the other. I'm reading "The Five Rules for Successful Stock Investing" by Dorsey, and in the book it's stated that "stock price movements convey no useful information", "the long-run performance of stocks ... has very little to do with what the stock did over the past week or month", "Most of us would be better investors if we could just block out all those graphs of past stock performance because they convey no useful information about the future.".
Now (as per my limited understanding) these statements directly fly in the face of the quant philosophy. I'm curious as to what causes some proponents of value investing to completely disregard the quant philosophy (and also the other way round). Is it because in their experience, the other style of investing has never worked out? In that case, wouldn't it simply be an empirical justification of not believing in the quantitative investment philosophy? Or is there any solid theoretical reasoning behind sticking ONLY to value or quant investing?
Also, even if there is plenty of empirical justification against the quant philosophy, isn't this chain of reasoning similar to what quants use in the first place? (there is plenty of empirical evidence that suggests so-and-so stock will do well in the future, hence invest in it <==> there is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that quant style of investing doesn't work, hence avoid it).
Disclaimer: With my limited experience, I have no predisposition to either school of thought. At this stage, I'm just trying to understand the merits and disadvantages of each style of investing.