The only way I see for the analogy to hold is by defining “science” in a completely impoverished way, that puts aside most of what science actually looks like.
I mean, the hope is mostly to replace the way that scientists communicate / what constitutes a “paper” / how grantmaking sometimes works. I agree that most of “science” happens someplace else!
Like, I think for the typical prediction market, people with questions are dramatically underestimating the difficulty in operationalizing things such that they can reliably resolve it as ‘yes’ or ‘no’. But most scientists writing papers are already running into and resolving that difficulty in a way that you can easily retool.
I mean, the hope is mostly to replace the way that scientists communicate / what constitutes a “paper” / how grantmaking sometimes works. I agree that most of “science” happens someplace else!
Like, I think for the typical prediction market, people with questions are dramatically underestimating the difficulty in operationalizing things such that they can reliably resolve it as ‘yes’ or ‘no’. But most scientists writing papers are already running into and resolving that difficulty in a way that you can easily retool.