Is it possible to test the truth-values of popular or entrenched conspiracy theories without resorting to censorship? To this end, Steve Kuhn and yours truly have just posted our new “World Truth League White Paper” to SSRN. In brief, we propose a new multi-round Bayesian scoring system for testing and adjudicating disputed claims like the lab-leak hypothesis or 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories. I will have a few more things to say about our proposed truth league soon; in the meantime, below is an excerpt (emphasis added; footnotes below the fold) from the introduction to our paper:
Were the 2020 U.S. presidential elections stolen?[1] Did a lab leak occur in Wuhan, China in 2019?[2] Was 9/11 an inside job?[3] More generally, how can we create a process where controversial topics are debated in a good faith manner? This white paper and prospectus outlines a novel iterative multi-round scoring method for testing the truth values of controversial claims.
By way of background, the authors have been attempting to design a truth market for several years now.[4] We now wish to present a tentative sketch of our solution: Hayek 3.0. If Hayek 1.0 is F. A. Hayek’s classic work on “The Uses of Knowledge in Society”,[5] i.e. the fundamental insight that prices reflect information that is dispersed and decentralized throughout the world, and if Hayek 2.0 are first-generation information markets like Kalshi,[6] Manifold,[7] and Polymarket,[8] then Hayek 3.0 is our blueprint for a new, second-generation information market, which we are calling the World Truth League.
[1] Although the consensus among experts is that there is no evidence of systemic voter fraud (see, e.g., Eggers, et al.), many leading political figures still continue to reject this expert consensus. See, e.g., Bender & Corasaniti 2024.
[2] For well-informed but opposing takes on the lab-leak theory, see, e.g., Alexander 2024 as well as Eban & Kao 2022.
[3] The persistence of 9/11 conspiracy theories (see, e.g., Lindsay & Shortridge 2021), however far-fetched or improbable, is further evidence that some kind of truth market to adjudicate disputed claims would be useful. If you agree with us, read on.
[4] See, e.g., Guerra-Pujol 2022.
[5] See Hayek 1945.
[6] See https://kalshi.com/.
prior probability 