Skip to main content
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