"Also to be clear, if an experimental report is being put forward - basically by anyone who's not a ten-year-old, there will automatically be a prediction market about whether those results would replicate.  You're expected to state your initial price and subsidize that at least a little, which is sort of how you say to the world that you actually believe your own results at all.  But everybody knowing more stuff, is to some irreducible degree a 'non-rival non-excludable public good', so it's the 'philanthropists' who come in and subsidize the thing where some experiments will be randomly selected for an exact 'replication'.  That is, it's random with a probability that goes according to complicated formulas that include the probability, the 'market volume', and the obvious 'impact'."

"The point being, almost any experiment has some probability of being actually replicated, in which case the conditional prediction market on its 'replication' producing around the same result, will pay out.  That incentivizes accurate prediction markets and careful trading, even on relatively minor experiments where you wouldn't usually pay to get replicated by one of the big expensive high-trust professional 'replication' firms."

"Because again, if an experiment didn't have any prediction market price on replicating, again, how would you have any idea what Civilization thought of it?  Would there really be a sense in which Civilization collectively knew anything about the result?  There being a prediction market, with some chance of the replication actually being performed in order to incentivize careful trading, seems to me like an obvious fundamental condition for an experiment really being part of Science! at all.  Without that, maybe somebody knows something about that result, but Civilization doesn't know anything about it."

"Also to be clear, if an experimental report is being put forward - basically by anyone who's not a ten-year-old, there will automatically be a prediction market about whether those results would replicate.  You're expected to state your initial price and subsidize that at least a little, which is sort of how you say to the world that you actually believe your own results at all.  But everybody knowing more stuff, is to some irreducible degree a 'non-rival non-excludable public good', so it's the 'philanthropists' who come in and subsidize the thing where some experiments will be randomly selected for an exact 'replication'.  That is, the selection is random with a chance that goes according to complicated formulas that include the market probability, the 'market-volume', and any advance-obvious 'impact'."

"The point being, almost any experiment has some probability of being actually replicated, in which case the conditional prediction market on its 'replication' producing around the same result, will pay out.  That incentivizes accurate prediction markets and careful trading, even on relatively minor experiments where you wouldn't usually pay to get 'replicated' by one of the big expensive high-trust professional 'replication' firms."

"Because again, if an experiment didn't have any prediction market price on replicating, again, how would you have any idea what Civilization thought of it?  Would there really be a sense in which Civilization collectively knew anything about the result?  There being a prediction market, with some chance of the replication actually being performed in order to incentivize careful trading, seems to me like an obvious fundamental condition for an experiment really being part of Science! at all.  Without that, maybe somebody knows something about that result, but Civilization doesn't know anything about it."

"Also to be clear, if an experimental report is being put forward - basically by anyone who's not a ten-year-old, there will automatically be a prediction market about whether those results would replicate.  You're expected to state your initial price and subsidize that at least a little, which is sort of how you say to the world that you actually believe your own results at all.  But everybody knowing more stuff, is to some irreducible degree a 'non-rival non-excludable public good', so it's the 'philanthropists' who come in and subsidize the thing where some experiments will be randomly selected for an exact 'replication'.  That is, the selection is random with a chance that goes according to complicated formulas that include the market probability, the 'market-volume', and any advance-obvious 'impact'."

"The point being, almost any experiment has some probability of being actually replicated, in which case the conditional prediction market on its 'replication' producing around the same result, will pay out.  That incentivizes accurate prediction markets and careful trading, even on relatively minor experiments where you wouldn't usually pay to get 'replicated' by one of the big expensive high-trust professional 'replication' firms."

"Because again, if an experiment didn't have any prediction market price on replicating, again, how would you have any idea what Civilization thought of it?  Would there really be a sense in which Civilization collectively knew anything about the result?  There being a prediction market, with some chance of the replication actually being performed in order to incentivize careful trading, is the condition for an experiment really being part of Science! at all.  Without that, maybe somebody knows something about that result, but Civilization doesn't know anything about it."

"Also to be clear, if an experimental report is being put forward by anyone who's not a ten-year-old, there will automatically be a prediction market about whether those results would replicate.  You're expected to state your initial price and subsidize that at least a little, which is sort of how you say to the world that you actually believe your own results at all.  But everybody knowing more stuff, is to some irreducible degree a 'non-rival non-excludable public good', so it's the 'philanthropists' who come in and subsidize the thing where some experiments will be randomly selected for an exact 'replication'.  That is, the selection is random with a chance that goes according to complicated formulas that include the market probability, the 'market-volume', and any advance-obvious 'impact'."

"The point being, almost any experiment has some probability of being actually replicated, in which case the conditional prediction market on its 'replication' producing around the same result, will pay out.  That incentivizes accurate prediction markets and careful trading, even on relatively minor experiments where you wouldn't usually pay to get 'replicated' by one of the big expensive high-trust professional 'replication' firms."

"Because again, if an experiment didn't have any prediction market price on replicating, again, how would you have any idea what Civilization thought of it?  Would there really be a sense in which Civilization collectively knew anything about the result?  There being a prediction market, with some chance of the replication actually being performed in order to incentivize careful trading, is the condition for an experiment really being part of Science! at all.  Without that, maybe somebody knows something about that result, but Civilization doesn't know anything about it."

"Also to be clear, if an experimental report is being put forward by anyone who's not a ten-year-old, there will automatically be a prediction market about whether those results would replicate.  You're expected to state your initial price and subsidize that at least a little, which is sort of how you say to the world that you actually believe your own results at all.  But Civilization knowing more stuff, is to some irreducible degree a 'non-rival non-excludable public good', so the 'philanthropists' come in and subsidize a process where some experiments will be randomly selected for an exact 'replication'.  That is, the selection is random with a chance that goes according to complicated formulas that include the market probability, the 'market-volume', and any advance-obvious 'impact'."

"The point being, almost any experiment has some probability of being actually 'replicated', in which case the conditional prediction market on the outcome of the 'replication', will pay out.  That incentivizes accurate prediction markets and careful trading, even on relatively minor experiments that wouldn't usually pay to get 'replicated' by one of the big expensive high-trust professional 'replication' firms."

"Because again, if an experiment didn't have any prediction market price on replicating, how would you have any idea what Civilization thought of it?  Would there really be a sense in which Civilization collectively knew anything about the result?  There being a prediction market, with some chance of the replication actually being performed in order to incentivize careful trading, is a key condition for an experiment really being part of Science! at all.  Without that, maybe somebody knows something about that result, but Civilization doesn't know anything about it."

"Also to be clear, if an experimental report is being put forward by anyone who's not a ten-year-old, there will automatically be a prediction market about whether those results would replicate.  You're expected to state your initial price and subsidize that at least a little, which is sort of how you say to the world that you actually believe your own results at all.  But Civilization knowing more stuff, is to some irreducible degree a 'non-rival non-excludable public good', so the 'philanthropists' come in and subsidize a process where some experiments will be randomly selected for an exact 'replication'.  That is, the selection is random with a chance that goes according to complicated formulas that include the market probability, the 'market-volume', and any advance-obvious 'impact'."

"The point being, almost any experiment has some probability of being actually 'replicated', in which case the conditional prediction market on the outcome of the 'replication', will pay out.  That incentivizes accurate prediction markets and careful trading, even on relatively minor experiments that wouldn't usually pay to get 'replicated' by one of the big expensive high-trust professional 'replication' firms."

"Or as my teachers emphasized to me a lot - if an experiment didn't have any prediction market price on replicating, how would you have any idea what Civilization thought of it?  Would there really be a sense in which Civilization collectively knew anything about the result?  There being a prediction market, with some chance of the replication actually being performed in order to incentivize careful trading, is a key condition for an experiment really being part of Science! at all.  Without that, maybe somebody knows something about that result, but Civilization doesn't know anything about it."

"Probably the people who actually think about Science! in tremendous detail are betting that, if we let the prediction markets on stuff lapse or stop paying attention to that, Science! will start to fall apart.  So it gets emphasized to children a lot?  I don't know the details, unfortunately, I'm just guessing based on how much different stuff got emphasized to me."

"Also to be clear, if an experimental report is being put forward by anyone who's not a ten-year-old, there will automatically be a prediction market about whether those results would replicate.  You're expected to state your initial price and subsidize that at least a little, which is sort of how you say to the world that you actually believe your own results at all.  But Civilization knowing more stuff, is to some irreducible degree a 'non-rival non-excludable public good', so the 'philanthropists' come in and subsidize a process where some experiments will be randomly selected for an exact 'replication'.  That is, the selection is random with a chance that goes according to complicated formulas that include the market probability, the 'market-volume', and any advance-obvious 'impact'."

"The point being, almost any experiment has some probability of being actually 'replicated', in which case the conditional prediction market on the outcome of the 'replication', will pay out.  That incentivizes accurate prediction markets and careful trading, even on relatively minor experiments that wouldn't usually pay to get 'replicated' by one of the big expensive high-trust professional 'replication' firms."

"Or as my teachers emphasized to me a lot - if an experiment didn't have any prediction market price on replicating, how would you have any idea what Civilization thought of it?  Would there really be a sense in which Civilization collectively knew anything about the result?  There being a prediction market, with some chance of the replication actually being performed in order to incentivize careful trading, is a key condition for an experiment really being part of Science! at all.  Without that, maybe somebody knows something about that result, but Civilization doesn't know anything about it."

"Probably the people who actually think about Science! in tremendous detail are betting that, if we let the prediction markets on stuff lapse or stop paying attention to that, Science! will start to fall apart.  So it gets emphasized to children, to prevent that scenario?  I don't know the details, unfortunately, I'm just guessing based on how much different stuff got emphasized to me."

"Also to be clear, if an experimental report is being put forward by anyone who's not a ten-year-old, there will automatically be a prediction market about whether those results would replicate.  You're expected to state your initial price and subsidize that at least a little, which is sort of how you say to the world that you actually believe your own results at all.  But Civilization knowing more stuff, is to some irreducible degree a 'non-rival non-excludable public good', so the 'philanthropists' come in and subsidize a process where some experiments will be randomly selected for an exact 'replication'.  That is, the selection is random with a chance that goes according to complicated formulas that include the market probability, the 'market-volume', and any advance-obvious 'impact'."

"The point being, almost any experiment has some probability of being actually 'replicated', in which case the conditional prediction market on the outcome of the 'replication', will pay out.  That incentivizes accurate prediction markets and careful trading, even on relatively minor experiments that wouldn't usually pay to get 'replicated' by one of the big expensive high-trust professional 'replication' firms."

"Or as my teachers emphasized to me a lot - if an experiment didn't have any prediction market price on replicating, how would you have any idea what Civilization thought of it?  Would there really be a sense in which Civilization collectively knew anything about the result?  There being a prediction market, with some chance of the replication actually being performed in order to incentivize careful trading, is a key condition for an experiment really being part of Science! at all.  Without that, maybe somebody knows something about that result, but Civilization doesn't know anything about it."

"Probably the people who actually think about Science! in tremendous detail are betting that, if we stop making prediction markets for everything, Science! will start to fall apart.  So that part gets emphasized to children, to prevent that scenario?  I don't know the details, unfortunately, I'm just guessing based on how much different stuff got emphasized to me."

"Also to be clear, if an experimental report is being put forward by anyone who's not a ten-year-old, there will always be some prediction market about whether a 'replication' would 'reproduce' those results.  You're expected to state your initial price and subsidize that market at least a little, which is how you say to the world that you actually believe your own results at all.  But Civilization knowing more stuff, is to some irreducible degree a 'non-rival non-excludable public good', so the 'philanthropists' come in and subsidize a process where some experiments will be randomly selected for 'replication'.  That is, the selection is random from a probability distribution that goes according to complicated formulas that include the market odds, the 'market-volume', and any advance-obvious 'impact'."

"The point being, almost any experiment has some probability of being actually 'replicated', in which case the conditional prediction market on the outcome of the 'replication', will pay out.  That incentivizes accurate prediction markets and careful trading, even on relatively minor experiments that wouldn't usually pay to get 'replicated' by one of the big expensive high-trust professional 'replication' firms."

"Or as my teachers emphasized to me a lot - if an experiment didn't have any prediction market price on 'reproducing', how would you have any idea what Civilization thought of it?  Would there really be a sense in which Civilization collectively knew anything about the result?  There being a prediction market, with some chance of the replication actually being performed in order to incentivize careful trading, is a key condition for an experiment really being part of Science! at all.  Without that, maybe somebody knows something about that result, but Civilization doesn't know anything about it."

"Probably the people who actually think about Science! in tremendous detail are betting that, if we stop making prediction markets for everything, Science! will start to fall apart.  So that part gets emphasized to children, to prevent that scenario?  I don't know the details, unfortunately, I'm just guessing based on how much different stuff got emphasized to me."