What is the most effective method of adjudicating the truth?

I'm not talking about the most politically practical method - which may be some variation of the democratic process we have today, and I'm also not talking about a tactical method like the scientific method, because that begs the question of whose application of it you trust. What is the best way, if we ignore all issues of implementation, for a group of people to come to a decision on who is right?

Some potential candidates:

Democratic vote (probably pretty awful)
Expert vote (how broadly do we determine what an expert is?)
Betting market
Vote with some sort of intellectual or expertise based cutoff
Panel of professional judges
Vote weighted by some measure of expertise or intelligent
etc.

Id say betting market. Bets are very subjective and bets to profit are movements. The more people on whatever, holds momentum. Brexit is a good example.

Betting markets are usually pretty reliable. It does filter out bluffers, .i.e. lots of people who boast about how Trump is secretly winning suspiciously aren't putting money on it.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Betting markets are usually pretty reliable. It does filter out bluffers, .i.e. lots of people who boast about how Trump is secretly winning suspiciously aren't putting money on it.

But with the example you are using here, the amount of people betting wouldn't really show either side was right. It ultimately doesn't actually tell us who is winning, it just tells us who is full of shit.

Ive put money on it. America has a lot of gambling bans, as well as gambling corruption in Atlanta and Vegas. Dont think its a viable point.

Originally posted by Surtur
But with the example you are using here, the amount of people betting wouldn't really show either side was right.

It correlates with who is right about who will win. The bet isn't on who would make a better candidate.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
It correlates with who is right about who will win. The bet isn't on who would make a better candidate.

I never said it was on who would make a better candidate. I'm saying there is no way to truly know who is right about who will win until someone wins.

From your betting thing, all you'd accomplish is finding out who people *believe* will truly win. That tells us how people feel, but your post didn't seem like it was out to find out how people truly feel about a situation.

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said it was on who would make a better candidate. I'm saying there is no way to truly know who is right about who will win until someone wins.

From your betting thing, all you'd accomplish is finding out who people *believe* will truly win.

I don't see what you're getting at. No, it isn't as predictive as hindsight, and we have to wait until we can verify its prognostications - that doesn't mean it isn't a useful guess. That's like saying meteorology is useless because we don't know if its predictions work out until after the predicted time has passed...

Okay I guess I misunderstood, because it almost seemed like in a nutshell you were asking us how we figure out whose opinion is more valid.

Betting is pretty much bandwagoning.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay I guess I misunderstood, because it almost seemed like in a nutshell you were asking us how we figure out whose opinion is more valid.

Yeah, and betting markets can be helpful in that. Just saying to wait until hindsight kicks in doesn't always work.

Originally posted by Its2016
Betting is pretty much bandwagoning.

Do you know why I don't trust democratic votes?

I never said wait until it kicks in, all I'm saying is there is no way to be sure who will win until someone wins. You say you want truth, but the truth is there is simply no truth right now in saying Hilary will win. There is no truth in saying Trump will win. These are opinions.

I didn't say any of the methods could make you 100% sure. You can't be 100% sure that the moon isn't made out of cheese.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Yeah, and betting markets can be helpful in that. Just saying to wait until hindsight kicks in doesn't always work.

Do you know why I don't trust democratic votes?

A lot of people are stupid.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I didn't say any of the methods could make you 100% sure. You can't be 100% sure that the moon isn't made out of cheese.

What I'm saying is I don't think we can even be 75% sure who will win.

I actually don't know about that. I think that betting markets and well designed polling aggregates like those by Wang and Silver are right more than 75% of the time.

So? If this election has told us anything, its that the United States of America and most of the world is incredibly dumb.

100 is the average iq. Ive spoken to people with 100 iqs. Average is a good description. Half the people, white priveleged people, are stupider than that.

"People are ****ing dumb" - George Carlin

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I actually don't know about that. I think that betting markets and well designed polling aggregates like those by Wang and Silver are right more than 75% of the time.

But it's going down a slippery slope if people want to try to present their opinions as facts.

May I ask what lead you to want to create this topic?