I am not sure that meme propagation through subcultures of experts is a good proxy for “truth”, except in very clear-cut cases. Not even physics is that reliable. For example, 5 years ago very few HEP experts believed that there is something physically detectable at the black hole horizon. By last year this fraction jumped significantly, thanks to the horizon firewall papers. I expect that it will plummet again 5 years from now. The situation is worse in less quantitative sciences, like psychology or economy. I’m sure you can come up with a few examples yourself.
This just comes back to the question of how truth-tracking the two people think the given expert community is, and how they should set their bets based on those anticipations. If one is worried about temporally local perturbations (see e.g. this bet), one could also agree to randomly sample the expert population at 15 years, 20 years, and 25 years.
I am not sure that meme propagation through subcultures of experts is a good proxy for “truth”, except in very clear-cut cases. Not even physics is that reliable. For example, 5 years ago very few HEP experts believed that there is something physically detectable at the black hole horizon. By last year this fraction jumped significantly, thanks to the horizon firewall papers. I expect that it will plummet again 5 years from now. The situation is worse in less quantitative sciences, like psychology or economy. I’m sure you can come up with a few examples yourself.
This just comes back to the question of how truth-tracking the two people think the given expert community is, and how they should set their bets based on those anticipations. If one is worried about temporally local perturbations (see e.g. this bet), one could also agree to randomly sample the expert population at 15 years, 20 years, and 25 years.