Back in August I commented on a paper by Mike Thicke that criticized prediction markets: With each of his reasons, Thicke compares prediction markets to some ideal of perfection, instead of to the actual current institutions it is intended to supplement.
The under-deterimination of theory by data, and a temptation toward post-hoc rationalization, can exist in all other institutions one might use to elicit explanations.
The difference is between a focus on giving reasons to others from one on making individual bets. [An individual 'talky collective' versus a market.] Scientists arguing about theories has proven a very effective way of securing agreement. Differences must be argued about; just collecting more data has never replaced scientific collectives. Yet that is the partial replacement you propose. Scientific arguments are not confined to the presentation of new data.
More Prediction Market Criticism
The under-deterimination of theory by data, and a temptation toward post-hoc rationalization, can exist in all other institutions one might use to elicit explanations.
The difference is between a focus on giving reasons to others from one on making individual bets. [An individual 'talky collective' versus a market.] Scientists arguing about theories has proven a very effective way of securing agreement. Differences must be argued about; just collecting more data has never replaced scientific collectives. Yet that is the partial replacement you propose. Scientific arguments are not confined to the presentation of new data.