Timeline for What are some notable bets Astronomers place on Astronomy, e.g. Mike Merrifield's on Mars; is there a list of them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nov 30, 2022 at 17:44 | review | Suggested edits | |||
Nov 30, 2022 at 20:45 | |||||
Nov 30, 2022 at 12:05 | history | reopened |
sno Prince Pugs uhoh giardia Jean-Marie Prival |
||
Nov 30, 2022 at 11:32 | comment | added | uhoh | @giardia Done! Please feel free to edit further. | |
Nov 30, 2022 at 11:32 | history | edited | uhoh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
revised based on @giardia's comment
|
Nov 30, 2022 at 7:20 | comment | added | giardia | I voted to re-open, but I suggest "What are some notable bets" instead of "How often..." to make sure it is not opinion-based. I have a fun story that is not online. | |
Nov 28, 2022 at 14:57 | review | Reopen votes | |||
Nov 30, 2022 at 12:05 | |||||
Nov 28, 2022 at 10:35 | history | closed |
AtmosphericPrisonEscape StephenG - Help Ukraine planetmaker WarpPrime Rory Alsop |
Opinion-based | |
Nov 28, 2022 at 8:52 | comment | added | Jean-Marie Prival | "Are there others" and "Is there a list of them" are yes/no questions, hence cannot be opinion-based. "How often" is more opened, but is asking about a frequency, which is something measurable, not opinion-based. Voting to leave open. | |
Nov 28, 2022 at 7:33 | answer | added | uhoh | timeline score: 2 | |
Nov 27, 2022 at 23:07 | comment | added | Anders Sandberg | @ProfRob - Good science involves a fair bit of strategizing about what approaches are promising, and bets are a credible way of signaling that somebody thinks a particular approach or answer is likely. Bluffer bets are not taken as seriously as bets between eminent but disagreeing scientists. (There is a side issue here about prediction markets for scientific questions; Robin Hanson has argued in various papers that they would be helpful, and tend to take the bluffers' money.) | |
Nov 26, 2022 at 23:41 | comment | added | uhoh | @ProfRob are you suggesting Mike Merrifield is a bluffer and bragger and doesn't do good science? Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne (early comments) fall into that category as well? This is a window into how astronomers think sometimes, and what goes on "under the hood" in the field. It's fun and interesting and future readers will be informed. | |
Nov 26, 2022 at 13:08 | comment | added | ProfRob | @AndersSandberg - Good science isn't done on the basis of someone's credence and bluffers and braggers (some with lots of money they could afford to lose) are everywhere. | |
Nov 26, 2022 at 9:54 | comment | added | Anders Sandberg | This is actually a relevant question and not just asking for trivia: betting is a surprisingly under-used way of improving epistemic states (since you are forced to put your credences and money on the line). This was likely first noted by Immanuel Kant (promising astronomer sadly turned philosopher), who offered to bet on the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. | |
Nov 26, 2022 at 8:47 | review | Close votes | |||
Nov 28, 2022 at 8:48 | |||||
Nov 26, 2022 at 4:28 | comment | added | uhoh | @PM2Ring I'm most interested in on-line bets where others can join (an Astronomy bet marketplace) but answers based on anecdotal bets are certainly welcome! Please consider writing one up! | |
Nov 26, 2022 at 3:57 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | Ah, I'd forgotten about that bet. I was thinking about another bet they made a few years later: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
Nov 26, 2022 at 3:46 | comment | added | uhoh | @PM2Ring What observational data convinced Stephen Hawking that Cygnus X-1 was indeed a black hole and caused him to break into Kip Thorne's office? | |
Nov 26, 2022 at 3:45 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | How about the bet between Hawking & Thorne regarding black hole information loss? | |
Nov 26, 2022 at 3:06 | history | asked | uhoh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |