Will there be a high-credibility spurious replication of LK-99 room temp superconductors before 2024?
139
954
3K
resolved Jan 1
Resolved
NO

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...

Get Ṁ1,000 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ2,455
2Ṁ708
3Ṁ695
4Ṁ635
5Ṁ614
Sort by:
bought Ṁ500 of NO

Betting because this field is so fraught and has substantial negative priors against RTAP SC, that it would be quite hard to thread the needle to convince skeptics AND also be wrong somehow

bought Ṁ15 of YES

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.

predicted NO

@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?

bought Ṁ41 of NO

@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😅

predicted NO

@CKLorentzen Aw, I missed it. Now P(spurious | replicated) is only 95%

bought Ṁ10 of YES

# Pessimistic Meta-Induction

bought Ṁ10 of YES

Super-Induction?

predicted YES
bought Ṁ10 of NO

By "accepted by a plurality of the scientific community," you mean that most scientists who have an opinion believe the replication is real, right? Not just that it is from a credible source, but that it is a genuine superconductor?

bought Ṁ10 of YES

@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.

More related questions