Jed, I think prediction markets actually CAN be useful to "confirm or deny assertions about scientific or engineering", and my article about "How I Made Money in Cold Fusion" is precisely aimed at that. If I had been given the 2nd contract aimed at the replication of Dr. Mossier-Boss's triple tracks in CR-39, the price would not have been 3:1 or 4:1 against it, but probably more like 1:1 or even 1:2 FOR it.
Because when it comes to money, people act differently than what they say. Just look at what Blaze has done in the last few weeks on this forum alone. He's gone from 10:1 against Rossi to 1:1 and 1:2 against Rossi. When it comes to putting your money down where your mouth is, people really tighten up. And for the general public, it would be a mystery why Intrade's odds for the CR-39 thing were so oblique, and it would be evidence in and of itself that LENR is quite real. The cool thing about Intrade was that it was a chance for me to put my money where my mouth was, and for those hyperskeptics to put theirs down as well (taking my money). Their mouth nowhere near matched their money placement. Basically, if we would have had a few rounds of LENR contracts on Intrade, the buzz would get out that LENR is real. Period. That you lose money betting against it. That is a powerful statement. On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > blaze spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of >> > December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. >> >> What does that have to do with the value of prediction markets? >> > > I mean only that prediction markets cannot be used to confirm or deny > assertions about scientific or engineering, such as whether airplanes can > exist or not. Prediction markets are the wrong tool for that. They cannot > affect physical reality as measured by instruments and photographs. > > Prediction markets might be a useful way to predict whether the public > will believe that a breakthrough exists, or whether it will continue > denying the facts. I do not know if these markets are good for that > purpose. I do not know enough about them. > > > >> I thought you believed that Rossi had figured this out years ago. >> >> (Which is what I'm trying to predict. . . . > > > You cannot predict that. You can only judge it by a careful evaluation of > the Levi report and by looking at others who have produced Ni-H cold > fusion. "Predicting" is the wrong word in any case. A prediction applies to > the future. Rossi's experiments have already happened. You are trying to > determine whether they proved what he claims. To do that, you must use the > tools of science and engineering, not the tools of a prediction market. > > Or, you might be trying to determine whether other people will believe him > at a given date in the future. That is an entirely different matter. People > did not believe the Wrights until 1908, but obviously they did actually fly > on many occasions between 1903 and 1908. People's beliefs have absolutely > no bearing what is true. Beliefs cannot affect reality. > > It works both ways. If you were betting on the outcome of an election, you > would not try to use the laws of thermodynamics, or a manual on > calorimetry. You might use a prediction market though. > > - Jed > >
