You could as easily say that journalism is an attempt to influence events. And it is, in a way! I think most journalists would be happy to point to situations where their reporting was read by influential people and maybe even changed outcomes. Pulitzer prizes are awarded for that sort of thing.
The question is whether this is improper influence? Is it too influential, for bad reasons?
I think a more reasonable critique of prediction markets is that it's guesswork laundering. We are given a number, but we don't know why that number was chosen. How can we tell whether it's justified?
When markets move, there is a whole industry of people coming up with explanations of why it might have happened - more guesswork!
A lucky guess can be helpful if it can be verified, but knowledge should be about more than making guesses. Sharing evidence is important.
The question is whether this is improper influence? Is it too influential, for bad reasons?
I think a more reasonable critique of prediction markets is that it's guesswork laundering. We are given a number, but we don't know why that number was chosen. How can we tell whether it's justified?
When markets move, there is a whole industry of people coming up with explanations of why it might have happened - more guesswork!
A lucky guess can be helpful if it can be verified, but knowledge should be about more than making guesses. Sharing evidence is important.