SHAREphiliptrammell.com/blog/3  ·  23 Sep 2017  ·  #3

Some, like Robin Hanson and Scott Alexander, have recommended that pundits put probabilities to their predictions, and even bet with each other about them, so that it's straightforward to check their track records. I agree wholeheartedly, and I think we should demand the same of historians. As far as I can tell, long-term bets (or even probability declarations) are quite rare—the Simon-Ehrlich wager is memorable because it's so unique. But without them, we essentially have no basis beyond eloquence for trusting one historian's interpretation of the world over another's.

I can understand why historians might not want to gamble with their retirement savings (though I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect that if someone calls himself a professional interpreter of history, some substantial part of his lifetime compensation should depend on some measurable estimate of his ability to interpret history). But to be valuable for their future readers, historians' probability declarations wouldn't have to be backed by bets—or even concern events that transpire within their own lives. As things stand, when we look back and read two contemporary commentators on the American Revolution, we generally don't have a straightforward way to determine whose character judgments and insights and counterfactuals are more reliable. If we had a record of the authors' probability predictions concerning westward expansion, or slavery, or anything else, our decision might be easier.

In a partisan environment, I imagine individual bets among individual experts would be too numerous to keep track of, and would allow people to cherrypick the bets that went in favor of the people on "their side" (or the experts on "their side" with lucky streaks, even if their underlying models are wrong). But betting might also help us choose more broadly between schools of historical, political, or economic thought. I can imagine a world in which, like Yale students and their debate societies, history professors are encouraged to affiliate themselves with some particular (conservative, Marxist, religious, or whatever) interpretation of history. Economists could likewise divide themselves among a handful of competing schools in economics, climate scientists among schools in climate science, and so on. The institutions would last longer than any single life, and would be able to make bets projected out indefinitely. Laypeople could then look up their "party platforms", and see their fortunes—determined by their bets about anything, as chosen by their members—rise and fall. With a mechanism like this, maybe we could finally solve the problem of persistent disagreement, and eventually bring everyone to consensus around controversial truths, for the good of the world.

It would also be a lot of fun.

POST