This market is supplimental to "Did COVID-19 come from a laboratory?":
https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/did-covid19-come-from-a-laboratory
I found a few problems with main COVID market including a long resolution threshold (17 years) and an inactive market creator. I believe the long resolution time might be the primary culprit for the YES market skew.
Resolution Criteria
This market will resolve as YES if clear and definitive evidence is presented by investigators of a lab leak. Evidence of the potential for a leak including evidence of irregular or faulty containment practices... will not be regarded as evidence of a leak. This evidence needs to be widely accepted by the scientific community (>95%) and by the political leadership of >80% of the world's countries. I would interpret moves by global health organizations to develop new standards for funding, containment, communication... as potential evidence that the global political leadership was starting to accept the leak theory as probable.
This market resolves as NO if any theory for zoonotic origin gains near universal scientific acceptance to explain the origin for SARS-CoV-2 (>95%). This market would also resolve as NO if there is no clear and definitive YES resolution by the close market date.
This market will only resolve as YES or NO.
Clarifications: Both a scientific and political consensus are required for a YES resolution. I understand that it might raise the bar slightly but this kind of consensus is not without precedent. I have also clarified the terms of the political consensus as requiring ">80% of the world's countries".
Related questions
@ShadowyZephyr I was under the impression that anthropogenic climate change is supported by roughly 97% of scientists? Definitely agree that political leadership is nowhere near 80%, though.
@ShadowyZephyr There is a general consensus on the existence of viruses and pandemics that easily fit both those criteria. Most of our shared reality as humans easily meets those criteria. In this case, I don't believe a scientific consensus will be achieved until there's a significant political consensus.
I think your issue might also be with the shorter resolution deadline. Is 2025 a realistic deadline for achieving a general consensus on this issue? It might be. 2027? 2030? 2040? 2060? 3330?
@evergreenemily I think it’s 97% of climate scientists, not of the general scientific community (though maybe it’s not far off).
@NicoDelon You should bet with your convictions. I will be resolving this as YES if the criteria are met.
@marnet My belief is that you’re unlikely to resolve YES based on the sort of evidence I would find conclusive (the political leadership condition, for instance, is just bizarre). My beliefs about the relative real world probabilities don’t track the probabilities this market should be at given your criteria.
@NicoDelon I can lower the threshold for political acceptance to 65% if that would make more sense. It's a global issue so I'd expect global political leadership to have an opinion on the matter.
@Joshua Pretty disappointed in that article (and surprised by what they’re letting stick there that they would otherwise edit out). But that’s of course more like common ground.
@marnet Well, I’m not sure you should change (as opposed to clarify) the resolution criteria after people have placed bets. More substantively, I find the introduction of political leadership just plainly irrelevant to the facts (but it’s just me being distrustful of governments as sources of information, let alone arbiters of truth). Your markets, your rules. I’m just telling you why I’m betting the way I am.
@NicoDelon I will clarify that the political consensus would be required in addition to the scientific consensus. That was my intention and it's not something unreasonable or novel when you consider that there is a global political consensus on climate change in addition to the scientific consensus.