“Ideally, a bet would use a question as big as the debate it means to settle. But that will not work, because big questions – “Will population growth outstrip resources and threaten civilization?” – do not produce easily measurable outcomes. The key, instead, is to ask many small, precise questions…. This approach, using question clusters, could be applied to virtually any important debate. Right now, for example we are putting the hawks-versus-doves argument about the Iran nuclear deal to the forecasting test.
“Naturally, using many questions could result in split decisions. But if our goal is to learn, that is a feature, not a bug. A split decision would suggest that neither bettor’s understanding of reality is perfectly accurate and that the truth lies somewhere between. That would be an enlightening result particularly when public debates are dominated by extreme positions.”
Phil Tetlock and Dan Gardner, May 11, 2016, Project Syndicate