There’s a lot I don’t follow here. In particular, you say a bunch of things and it’s not clear if you think that they are the same thing or related or unrelated. Some of that may be the excerpt nature.
What does the “territory” of the title mean? Snappy titles are good, but you should also explain the metaphor. Perhaps you mean the laws of science, rather than the concrete observations or even interventional claims about specific experiments? Robin Hanson’s response is: Just Do It: make decade long bets on vaguely worded claims. He proposes lots of infrastructure to fix these problems and it doesn’t seem very convincing to me, but the proposal seems built incrementally, so it is easy to start small.
What does it matter if prediction markets don’t do X? If people are proposing prediction markets as an additional institution, then it matters what they do, rather than what they don’t do. If they are proposed as a substitute for existing institutions, then it matters if they are as good as the existing ones. But there is a serious instance of status quo bias that people pretend that existing institutions work, whereas they often don’t. Seemingly unambitious that work may well be an improvement over ambitious institutions that don’t. Robin Hanson does propose substituting prizes for research grants, so there he would have to make that argument. But research funding is highly divisible, so it is easy to start small and see what happens.
There’s a lot I don’t follow here. In particular, you say a bunch of things and it’s not clear if you think that they are the same thing or related or unrelated. Some of that may be the excerpt nature.
What does the “territory” of the title mean? Snappy titles are good, but you should also explain the metaphor. Perhaps you mean the laws of science, rather than the concrete observations or even interventional claims about specific experiments? Robin Hanson’s response is: Just Do It: make decade long bets on vaguely worded claims. He proposes lots of infrastructure to fix these problems and it doesn’t seem very convincing to me, but the proposal seems built incrementally, so it is easy to start small.
What does it matter if prediction markets don’t do X? If people are proposing prediction markets as an additional institution, then it matters what they do, rather than what they don’t do. If they are proposed as a substitute for existing institutions, then it matters if they are as good as the existing ones. But there is a serious instance of status quo bias that people pretend that existing institutions work, whereas they often don’t. Seemingly unambitious that work may well be an improvement over ambitious institutions that don’t. Robin Hanson does propose substituting prizes for research grants, so there he would have to make that argument. But research funding is highly divisible, so it is easy to start small and see what happens.