Could gambling save science? (1990)

>funding an automatic inventory-based [St] market-maker, which always offers to buy or sell at prices determined solely by its current inventory, one gives away money only to those who move the market price in the direction of its final verdict. Interesting idea. So, by pumping money to such market, one could establish current consensus without having to ask anyone and if current consensus is on the wrong side, you just get some money as consolatory prize.

This submission was probably sparked by the recent prediction market results from the Social Science Replication Project. In this study, a prediction market with 206 traders and $20,600 of incentives was able to predict whether 21 psychology studies would replicate with pretty astounding accuracy (5/5 bets with <50% predicted did not actually replicate, and 13/16 with >50% did - and the 3 misses were predicted at like 51%, 52%, 53%).

Coverage by the Atlantic here: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/scientis...

Coverage by 538 on previous work by the same authors: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-tell-good-studie...

Commentary on LessWrong here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7w2tCRocphK9yW8rG/unknown-kn...

And my own thoughts here: https://www.facebook.com/tedsanders/posts/10106092033737384

For reference, I was one of the top prize winners on SciCast.org, an academic science prediction market that Robin Hanson (author of linked article) was involved in. I personally am excited by scientific prediction markets because they are a systematic way of making hidden knowledge public.

I was sad to see intrade.com close. predictit.org still offers political prediction markets.

BTW, Robin Hanson's blog is a good read: http://www.overcomingbias.com/. He explores in-depth the topic of "Ems" (people emulated on computers in a world where AGI doesn't exist).

>Yet little has really changed. Academia is still largely a medieval guild, with a few powerful elites, many slave-like apprentices, and members who hold a monopoly on the research patronage of princes and the teaching of their sons. Outsiders still complain about bias, saying their evidence is ignored, and many observers [Gh,Re,Syk,Tu] have noted some long-standing problems with the research component of academia.

I dont consider 'research' science. I consider engineering more scientific.

You dont get to fudge data when you need things to work. Things need to work. And if you did mess up, you will keep working until things 'work'.

Academia produces a paper and these are rarely verified.

This is the same Robin Hanson that recently authored "The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life". His physics background makes for interesting economic analyses.

Staking reputation does not reward people who are right, rather than it rewards people who are good at being right