There is a bounty for this sort of thing. It is not only for telepathy, but if somebody can support that they have paranormal abilities under scientific test conditions, there is a $500,000 payout.

https://cfiig.org/paranormal-challenge/

@Quroe the “telepathy tapes” “demonstrations” rely on things like having a caretaker who can see different colored sticks push left vs right on their mentally disabled charge’s head while said charge is blindfolded to guide them on which direction to place each stick.

The incentive of the people pushing it is to do things like that that look convincing to desperate parents who struggle with their disabled kids so they can milk them with paywalled content. They are strongly disincentivized from doing controlled experiments necessary for a prize like that because it doesn’t hold up to cursory scrutiny and will only cost them marks.

With this title it should resolve NO if not verified rather than NA.

EDIT: title was changed

@LiamZ why?

@Krantz the title asks if they will be verified. Even if the answer is “NO they will not be verified,” you will resolve N/A in most scenarios. That disconnects the market from the question.

@LiamZ In theory, we could make a new market that links to this market with criteria something along the lines of...

Resolves YES if this linked market resolves YES. Otherwise, resolves NO. This market cannot resolve N/A.

Is there enough interest in this?

@LiamZ 'Verified' is an ambiguous term intentionally. That's why the resolution criteria is defined in the description. The truth is, they have been verified. By several scientists with several PHDs. However, mainstream academia hasn't cooberated or refuted their findings. They just ignore them because the topic would get them canceled. This is all explained in the tapes if you actually watch them.

I mean above by 'verified' in the sense of will their verification be 'verified' to be either conclusively true or conclusively false by mainstream academia? This is similar to asking if either atheism or theism will ever be 'proven' by mainstream academia. Continuing a position of 'there's not enough evidence to say conclusively either way' is metaphorically agnostic and is the case for which this would resolve NA.

@Krantz if there is not enough evidence to say either way then they were not verified.

@Quroe The problem with this is that in a possible universe where they tapes were legitimate, yet the vast majority of academia refused to look at the data because of their bias, your market would resolve 'no' and that would not reflect the actual truth of whether the tapes are real (the property that I'm aiming to wager on).

Would everyone feel better if the market said, 'Are the telepathy tapes actually documenting psychic abilities?

@Krantz That appears to more closely match your market description. I'm on board, but feel free to hear more responses before pulling the trigger.

@Krantz yes, the question you asked was if they will be verified, not if they are “real.” It’s Russel’s teapot.

Regarding bias, you have used this market to incentivize yourself to ignore evidence against them so there’s no reason to bet NO. You already ignored existing critiques so the market will almost certainly only resolve YES or NA.

@Krantz I think a good case study to test here would be Clever Hans. This is the true story of the horse named Hans that could supposedly solve math problems as an entertainment spectacle. In this historical case study, a group dubbed the Hans Commission, which included a veterinarian, a circus manager, a cavalry officer, school teachers, and the Director of the Berlin Zoological Gardens, was tasked with figuring out if this horse's abilities were a farse. After some tests, they concluded that there was no trickery in the horse's performance.

Would that have counted as verification by the same standards as this market? Or is this market using a more rigorous standard?

@Quroe I would judge that it was sufficiently verified that Hans did not know how to do math.

@Krantz That's the conclusion from after Pfungst was subsequently given the task after the Hans Commission declared 'no trickery.'

This question is in regard to the stop gap time between the Commission's conclusion and Pfungst's conclusion.

Since time only moves forward, suppose a Commission concluded 'no trickery' for the Telepathy Tapes, but we didn't know the investigation was handed off to somebody like Pfungst today. Would somebody presenting this initial conclusion of 'no trickery' in the comments here resolve this market YES?

@LiamZ The proposition 'There are humans that have telepathically communicated' is either true or false.

Just like Fermat's last theorem, the Poincare conjecture, P=NP, the Earth is round, etc.

When academia looks at a proof they either say (1) That's definitely true. (2) That's definitely false. or (3) We don't have enough evidence.

Right now, there's no reputable scientist in the world that would be willing to bet their entire career at a thousand to 1 odds (in their favor) on this prediction. That's about the ballpark conditions I'd put on something being 'definitely true'.

@Quroe No. I would expect a commission capable of resolving this proposition to understand that 'no trickery' doesn't imply 'the horse can do math'. Good question. Thanks.

@Krantz that isn’t how science works but that’s outside the scope and missing the point of the thread.

@Krantz

When academia looks at a proof they either say (1) That's definitely true. (2) That's definitely false. or (3) We don't have enough evidence.

There is a difference between a proof and a conclusion reached by scientific experimental evidence. I had a whole paragraph written out for this, but I think this 7 minute video essay is much more elegant than what I had. https://youtu.be/DQO-t_bZDyY?si=JEK1FoUgrIQBRUjO

Is the moon made of cheese? Probably not, but if you have an absolute 0% probability of that belief, no amount of evidence in the future could cause you to change your belief if you're employing Bayes' Rule to update your worldview, so you should have some level of belief greater than 0%, even if it's only 0.00001%, in order to accept opposing evidence. A further explanation of this is in this 19 minute video essay by Manifold's favorite doggo over at Rational Animations. https://youtu.be/4hHA-oqpNig?si=ozTw-OX24DAIVbqp

"The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error."

-Bertolt Brecht, Life of Galileo

With evidence, we can only disprove, never prove. So, yes, we can say that the statement of "humans have telepathically communicated before" must be a binary true or false, but we can't logically bring that into the realm of human knowledge with a proof, as far as I can tell. The closest thing we have for telepathy are (hopefully peer reviewed) experiments that have a confidence level associated with their data and conclusions, and if that confidence meets a certain threshold, we might as well decide it's more useful to accept the conclusion as true or false for now, but that can always be updated later with more research since science is an iterative process.

It may be more useful for the sake of this market to use peer reviewed studies with whatever confidence level you're comfortable with as the standard to resolve to. This market cannot be resolved by a proof, as far as I can tell, unless somebody comes out with a "how to do telepathy" instruction guide that can be replicated by the every-man.

Alternatively, is this market using the standard of asking if somebody prominent is willing to stake their career on the Telepathy Tapes being real, regardless of the outcome? It only takes one person tempted by fame and riches to trigger that event.

Edit: We might be largely in agreement here since it seems like you are looking for scientific community consensus. This comment is trying to pin down how many people from the scientific community are necessary to have on board on either side of the debate. Just 1? Or some critical number of people?

Consensus according to whom?

Does an at-arms-length article describing clear flaws in their measurement methodology count as a debunking?

@Krantz Would you be able to provide an example of an article or source debunking anything comparable that would be sufficient to resolve this market NO if this market were were to be about that subject matter? It would give us a good baseline to work with.

I see you also hold a YES position as the judge of this market.

@Quroe https://youtu.be/8QUjlSU8co4?si=Uqs10YFvDslr_WzO