In the latest issue of symmetry, Robin Hanson, a pioneer in the field of prediction markets, has an essay that confronts physicists about the value of their predictions. He asks whether the predictions made by physicists about the LHC really have genuine content or are most so wishy-washy that they are not much better than horoscopes.
On his own blog, commenters have engaged in some vigorous discussion on the topic with many comparisons between physics and economics. Hanson implies in his piece that physicists making predictions are held to lower standards than those in other fields and the comments thread has people weighing in on whether that is actually true, and if it is, why that might be the case.
What do you think of his thesis?