If betting is an indicator of confidence in a particular idea, then I would expect large bets for those who are true believers. Entrepreneurs gamble everything they own on a business vision, something that gives investors solace. I doubt whether a $1,000 bet by a highly paid academic really qualifies as being serious.
Bets are generally a terrible way to find out who’s right. Imagine mathematicians or software engineers betting to figure out who is correct about the answer to a technical question! It’s more like a last resort, if nobody can make any progress, then you could bet, and maybe you slightly improve your knowledge, but it’s really low on the totem pole of how to figure out the truth.
I don't think Bryan means that he uses bets to arrive at truth. He uses other methods to arrive at his hypotheses, and then the betting serves to make anyone who enters the field or challenges those hypotheses more rigorous, as they actually have something to lose for being wrong. When all in the field are more rigorous about their truth-seeking methods, we arrive at more truth.
Today, we have people making any kind of frivolous claim, but with no money (or any hard consequence) where their mouth is, bad ideas never get checked. And look at the state of things in academia, climate "science," social "science, and almost any field that does not have strict, practical, near-term outcomes (e.g. tech, business).
Betting reveals what people really believe, and how much they believe it. And if they had to make a wager, I bet they would back off a lot of the wild and destructive ideas they espouse.
Las Vegas is calling. They like academics with strong feelings.
If betting is an indicator of confidence in a particular idea, then I would expect large bets for those who are true believers. Entrepreneurs gamble everything they own on a business vision, something that gives investors solace. I doubt whether a $1,000 bet by a highly paid academic really qualifies as being serious.
Bets are generally a terrible way to find out who’s right. Imagine mathematicians or software engineers betting to figure out who is correct about the answer to a technical question! It’s more like a last resort, if nobody can make any progress, then you could bet, and maybe you slightly improve your knowledge, but it’s really low on the totem pole of how to figure out the truth.
I don't think Bryan means that he uses bets to arrive at truth. He uses other methods to arrive at his hypotheses, and then the betting serves to make anyone who enters the field or challenges those hypotheses more rigorous, as they actually have something to lose for being wrong. When all in the field are more rigorous about their truth-seeking methods, we arrive at more truth.
Today, we have people making any kind of frivolous claim, but with no money (or any hard consequence) where their mouth is, bad ideas never get checked. And look at the state of things in academia, climate "science," social "science, and almost any field that does not have strict, practical, near-term outcomes (e.g. tech, business).
Betting reveals what people really believe, and how much they believe it. And if they had to make a wager, I bet they would back off a lot of the wild and destructive ideas they espouse.