If the scientific consensus becomes that LK-99 is not a RTAP SC as the authors orginally claimed, will it seem likely the authors knew this, but decided to claim it was anyway? Or, will it be the case that the authors were just in error?
Resolves yes if it seems clear that there was wrongdoing from the authors. I say "very likely" because an admission of guilt may be hard to come by.
Resolves no if it seems clear there was honest error that came either from measurement error or genuine "hints" of SC in LK-99 that turn out to only be hints.
Resolves N/A if there is no clear answer.
May resolve as a % split if the evidence seems to lean toward, but not conclusively so, YES/NO..
If it seems like a murky combination of fraud and error, then this may resolve as a % split or N/A.
Keep in mind: I would guess there is a high chance this market resolves as a % split or N/A.
Also resolves N/A if the pre-print replicates.
I will not bet in this market. It should stay open until Jan 1, 2025, but this timeline may be extended.
1,000
3.00@Odoacre Excellent question. I am leaning towards all authors; however, if, for example, one author commited fraud which the others were not aware of, then this might be in a murky gray area and have to be resolved with a % split.
Very interesting market! I think this is very difficult to tell at the moment. I've got a suspicion that their impressively levitating samples might be ferromagnets, which would be an incredibly dumb thing to overlook - but what's more likely, that it's fraudulant or that they overlooked it? I have no clue.
I initially leaned against it being fraud. But the hovering is impressive and nothing else is reproducing yet and they haven't let anyone else see the hovering (see below), so I'm leaning more that it might be. Small bet on YES.
