Background: Spurious replications during cold fusion
A "high-credibility spurious replication" is a replication attempt accepted by a substantial fraction of the scientific community, that is later shown to be mistaken or whose substantial claims are later retracted. I will exclude replications that seem crankish (some degree of subjectivity is inevitable). (The standard is such that the conditition would have been met during the cold fusion craze.)
The replication must be published (or pre-print shared) in 2023; the debunking may occur later. I may wait until 2025 to resolve if uncertain...
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ2,455 | |
| 2 | Ṁ708 | |
| 3 | Ṁ695 | |
| 4 | Ṁ635 | |
| 5 | Ṁ614 |
I was thinking of the cold fusion debacle when I was reading the preprint of the LK-99 paper. I wish I'd thought to make this market, but I suppose betting in it will have to be sufficient. I'll admit my position here is partly a hedge against a spurious replication causing me to lose the other LK-99 replication market.
Made a market that is conditional on this one. In case that’s of interest to anyone: https://manifold.markets/CKLorentzen/if-it-replicates-in-2023-will-a-rep?r=Q0tMb3JlbnR6ZW4
@CKLorentzen Given the market for “will it replicate?” Is at abt. 35% now, this market being at 28% implies an 80% likelihood of a replication being spurious, conditional on there being a replication. That’s sounds nuts to me.
@CKLorentzen Couldn't there be some legitimate replications in addition to at least one spurious replication?
@Conflux There could. But 80% likelihood that a spurious replication is “accepted by a substantial fraction of the scientific community”? Seems high.
Also, looking at the two markets in the contingent market, implied is now 100%. That is definitely too high😅
@JosephNoonan Since no one else has bet, i've changed the language from "plurality" to "substantial fraction". Feel free to dump your position if you want.