Talk:Scientific wager

Great article.

I ,an atheist student of physics and Computer science of Israel Technion,bet a 1000 US$ and the loser public 'dance of shame' that within the next 20 years a weak form of AI will pass the turing test.

Anyone up for it ? The Procrastinator 14:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The bet is too poorly defined. To pass the Turing test on one particular occasion would not be a very impressive accomplishment.

Colin 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Genome wager

Any editor who wishes to delete the reference to Lewis Wolpert and Rupert Sheldrake's genome wager should discuss their reasons for this deletion here before doing so again.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The absence of this wager from this page is perverse; it is the most discussed of the ongoing scientific wagers. On the other hand, several of the "wagers" included in this page - eg Wren, Feynman - are NOT wagers but prizes offered for specific goals. I would argue they should be removed to another article. Robma (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I initially refactored this so it wasn't given undue prominence, but then noticed issues with the source (discussed on related pages) and the fact that this really doesn't meet the criteria of a famous wager by any reasonable definition. (See Genome Wager talk) Verbal chat 12:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that the claim that the New Scientist piece is ""3rd party source" is false. The source describes itself as "08 July 2009 by Lewis Wolpert and Rupert Sheldrake". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Hrafn may have a point in that the New Scientist piece is by the protagonists themselves. However, WP:THIRDPARTY#Articles without third-party sources makes it plain that information without third party sources may be incorporated into other articles, if "summarized appropriately". Furthermore, let's not forget the standing of the journal, and of Wolpert and Sheldrake themselves—it wouldn't be published there if it weren't true and notable. ("Notable" added after comment from User:OMCV, below, just to keep the NS-related together.) --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing the existence of a wager. The contention is that the wager has no third party coverage and is thus not WP:NOTE.--OMCV (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Moonraker, not everything that is published and notable for a "news" outlet, New Scientist, is notable for an "encyclopedia". Right now this story isn't much more than internet trivia, until this story is picked up by the wider scientific or mainstream media its of little "Note" even if many newsfeeds like Boing Boing have featured the story. Also it would be nice if you responded to my post with new post rather than editing your earlier post which ultimately change the context of my post.--OMCV (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies if my last was in breach of etiquette. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This wager has not been picked up by any notable media outlets and has become historic trivia that doesn't meet WP:note. I for one think it would best for it to be removed.--OMCV (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My argument for retention, above, was in support of New Scientist as a reliable source, but it seems less valid now as the story has evidently sunk from the news radar. Perhaps WP:RECENT now applies. I reverted the deletion primarily because it was made without reference to the discussion here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A scientific wager is significant to the extent that it brings attention to an unresolved issue in science. The wager between Sheldrake and Wolpert concerns the question of whether DNA can be considered a kind of blueprint of the finished organism (or, more precisely, a developmental program of the embryo). This wager is all the more important given the near universal opinion that the issue has been resolved. This opinion, unfortunately, is just that, an opinion and not a demonstrated fact. As Stephen Jay Gould pointed out shortly before his death, despite how obvious the issue seems, no one has ever managed to formulate this opinion into a testable hypothesis, much less provide proof. Wolpert is betting that biologists will finally offer clearcut proof. Sheldrake is betting the contrary, on the basis of his opinion that organisms are irreducible to material components and that genes, while influencing development, do not provide the general template according to which an organism forms. So long as the underlying issue of genetic reductionism remains unresolved, this dispute belongs on the scientific wagers page. Alfonzo Green (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet—it's been deleted again. To return again to User:Alfonzo Green's first point: one editor is taking the trouble to explain his reasoning on the talk page, but the deleting editor merely has "Sheldrake again" in his/her summary. The point, above, about deletions being made "without reference to the discussion here" still holds: There doesn't seem to be a consensus and actions need to be justified properly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To quote "given the near universal opinion that the issue has been resolved" indicates that only a extreme minority believe this debate would be worth a damn even if it was notable (WP:NOTE). To present a balanced NPOV we can not champion minority perspectives (WP:NOTSOAPBOX).--OMCV (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So the wager doesn't matter because opinion is heavily weighted on one side of the issue? Clearly this is not a scientific attitude. The notability rule applies to whole articles, not entries, and besides the notability of the scientists themselves makes it notable. This is a report on a scientific wager, not the championing of one perspective or another. I should add that science articles shouldn't champion any perspectives, whether they're majority or minority viewpoints. Alfonzo Green (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read wp:fringe it discusses how minority perspectives, especially minority scientific perspectives are to be presented to stay in line with WP:NPOV. WP:Note applies to the whole of articles, all sections. If you want to discuss policy or the nature of science leave me a note at my talk page.--OMCV (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wp:fringe deals with fringe opinions. A wager between two scientists is not a fringe opinion or any kind of opinion. As I said, the notability rule applies to whole articles. So if scientific wagers are not notable, the entry on scientific wagers should be deleted. Clearly you are grasping at straws. Barring any reasonable argument as to why the material should be deleted, I am restoring it. Alfonzo Green (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct concerning the application of WP:Note I was wrong. WP:Note does not apply to assertions or sections of a page only the page as a unit. The policy I should have been sighting is WP:UNDUE regarding a fringe minority receiving move coverage than is appropriate for their notability. Wp:fringe is most definitely applicable in anything regrading Sheldrake.--OMCV (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheldrake again because we have already had this discussion. Reverting after a month of inactivity without establishing a new consensus here is borderline disruptive editing. If the above arguments can be countered and a new consensus forged, it should be included, but please take that step first. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In no way is this "wager" notable (or famous). No interesting continued discussion, it isn't mentioned in any important texts, is only mentioned by primary sources, etc... I agree with 2/0, that discussion should happen first - and I've yet to see anything to suggest Sheldrake's pointless wager is worth including. Please explain, with reference to significant 3rd party coverage, why this wager should be included now. Verbal chat 21:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sheldrake has no standing in the scientific community, so it's irrelevant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Simon–Ehrlich wager

Exactly what makes the Simon–Ehrlich wager a scientific wager, as opposed to an economic one? —Ruud 02:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)