Stack Exchange
log in   chat   discuss   faq   users   badges

Area 51 » Culture

definition commitment beta
179
followers
Share This

Skeptics

Beta Q&A site for skeptics, rationalists, free thinkers, or anyone who questions woo and pseudoscience. Skeptics is aimed at *applied* skepticism -- researching specific areas of woo or pseudoscience. It is not for philosophical discussions about skepticism.

Announcements

8  
Skeptic Exchange is already a thriving community skepticexchange.org – rjstelling Jul 11 '10 at 11:03
13  
see also: area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6993/… – sth Jul 11 '10 at 11:44
8  
Can we merge "Skepticism" into this proposal, perhaps? area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6993/… – Tullo Jul 21 '10 at 6:58
show 10 more announcements
5
votes
1
answer

Should Skeptic Exchange be seeded with questions from skepticexchange.org.

jun 13 at 22:57 Dori 678
-4
votes
1
answer

Merge skeptic exchange and atheist exchange

jun 6 at 0:20 Dori 678
1
vote
1
answer

Why “not for discussion about skepticism”?

jun 6 at 0:16 Dori 678
4
votes
3
answers

Should Skeptic Exchange be cross-listed under Science?

jun 1 at 23:50 Dori 678
-11
votes
1
answer

Move Atheism questions to new Skeptics site

jun 1 at 23:33 Dori 678

show 1 more discussion
create new discussion

This proposal is now in the Beta phase — example questions are locked!

39 Example Questions (8 closed)

active oldest votes
up vote -2 down vote
Why is it so HARD to break through people's preconceived notions on religion to open their minds? Shouldn't having facts on one's side count?
added by user10102 Jul 13 '10 at 22:20
link
Too subjective - question includes assumption – Wikis Jul 15 '10 at 11:19
I disagree with Mark about presenting questions that include assumptions--those who think those assumptions are unfounded can point that out in their answer, but it's unreasonable to expect every question to be argued from first principles. However the question as phrased is too broad and vague: "open their minds" could mean almost anything, for example. Still, not off-topic in my opinion. – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 21:21
up vote -2 down vote
Is skeptical thinking a waxing or waning trait in the general populous?
added by user12055 Jul 21 '10 at 12:18
link
up vote -4 down vote
Is the term "skeptic" working against the skeptical movement, as many see it as a negative term?
added by Laura Jul 11 '10 at 12:55
link
1  
Once again wth with all the 'not a good examples'... Leave a comment people! IMO this is an excellent question. It would be reasonable to expect that the fuller version would include references to some kind of evidence that 'skeptic' is seen as a negative term, and specificity for who the 'many' is, but it doesn't seem that you can go into that kind of detail just for these proposals, so this is fine by me. – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 21:33
up vote -4 down vote
If there is intelligent life "out there" how likely is it to look similar to us? [closed]
added by Laura Jul 11 '10 at 13:02
link

closed as off topic by Al Morrison, Dolbz, platinumwolf, ceejayoz, EdSG Jul 12 '10 at 20:21

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

why is this off-topic? – Juan Antonio Jul 20 '10 at 8:39
Seconded--surely this is relevant given the number of claims alien visitation, and as a general skeptical request for education on a scienc-y topic. – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 22:19
2  
a question about the existence of ET life is one thing, but who could do more than speculate about the appearance of these theoretical ETs? and what is the significance of their appearance? – danzein Jul 22 '10 at 0:30
One could in principle do "educated" speculations about the basic principles of life, and what life should look like in other planets. I don't think this is a good question anyway, but it's also not a great off-topic example either. – Juan Antonio Jul 23 '10 at 8:06
NaGE: so how would there be a definite answer presented? what kind of scientist could the community at large turn to for an authoritative answer? I can see a decent question that speculates about likelihood of it being carbon-based, or something else, but not so much over what it looks like. – mfg Aug 20 '10 at 12:35
up vote -4 down vote
Do skeptics really "oppose" things like "pseudo-science" or do they just make opposing arguments without necessarily dismissing?
added by Wikis Jul 12 '10 at 21:44
link
Because the forum states "opposes woo and pseudoscience" - not sure that is the case? – Wikis Jul 13 '10 at 7:34
1  
I guess if something is classified as "woo or pseudoscience" (at least by skeptics) it's because they have already made "opposing arguments without necessarily dismissing" – Juan Antonio Jul 13 '10 at 7:39
@Juan - sounds then like skeptics define pseudoscience - whereas I thought it was someone posing as a scientist but without proof (that is, you can objectively identify it). Thanks for the reply. – Wikis Jul 13 '10 at 17:43
1  
Generally I think skeptics would consider pseudo-science to be theories presented as rational and scientific by proponents but unsupported by the available evidence and/or rational argument. Woo is more of a catch-all for 'all that crazy shit.' ;) So yeah, opposed. – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 22:04
1  
How this could be considered off-topic however I don't understand. Not a good example perhaps, but on-topic. – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 22:25
show 1 more comment
up vote -4 down vote
Nuclear is the safest quickest replacement fuel source so why is there so much opposition to it?
added by Philip Painter Jul 15 '10 at 14:09
link
1  
I guess you're getting "not a good example" votes because you have built a presupposition into your question. – Robert Harvey Jul 18 '10 at 16:27
Indeed, I agree with Mr Harvey's point. – Anonymous Jul 23 '10 at 12:49
up vote -4 down vote
Is space exploration really useful, or just a waste of money?
added by Henry Aug 29 '10 at 0:06
link
Space Exploration is not a controversial subject, since it brought many scientific advances to mankind. Extra-terrestrial life search would be a better subject, since it raises more skeptcism. – Jader Dias Aug 29 '10 at 23:20
up vote -5 down vote
Why are "skeptics" so resistant to the idea that there must be a REASON why people have searched from time immemorial for Something Beyond?
added by user10102 Jul 13 '10 at 22:08
link
Are they resistant to that idea? – Anonymous Jul 15 '10 at 12:36
I agree with user10636. I think the reasons are fairly well understood (or, at least, there are a good many plausible conjectures as to why people do this), aren't they? – BaldySlaphead Jul 15 '10 at 13:59
up vote -7 down vote
How many skeptics does it take to change a lightbulb? [closed]
added by user9449 Jul 11 '10 at 11:16
link

closed as off topic by edgarhaydon, Aldo, Dolbz, Leo, Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 21:22

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

I'm thinking this is an excellent OT example, one that would be well placed in the meta-area of the eventual site. Most of us like to have a laugh at ourselves, but that's not relevant for the main Q&A area. – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 21:25
so ? how many ? – Stefano Borini Aug 15 '10 at 18:42
prev 1 2

This site is in

Public Beta

Anyone can participate!

Sites remain in beta for at least 90 days to build up a critical mass of users, questions, and participation.

proposed by

rjstelling
14k●13●67●239

1 year ago

edited by

Robert Cartaino♦ ♦ 12
52.7k●12●104●328

11 months ago

viewed

11,721 times

latest activity

11 months ago

followers

users also following

8.9% Philosophy
8.9% Personal Producti...
7.8% Science Fiction &...
7.3% Literature
52.0% only this proposal

followers active in

48.0% Stack Overflow
33.5% Super User
33.0% Meta Stack Overflow
28.5% Server Fault
25.1% Programmers
17.9% Gaming

recent followers

added Aug 13 '11 at 6:05
luvieere
14.7k●2●33●127
added Aug 4 '11 at 2:28
ckittel
3,153●12●49
added Aug 3 '11 at 2:01
TRiG
5,825●17●90
added Mar 29 '11 at 8:58
Egle Tureviciute
1,406●2●23
added Mar 19 '11 at 14:39
daniel.sedlacek
1,447●3●41
added Mar 11 '11 at 21:31
Larian LeQuella ♦ 1
23.3k●11●92●260
added Feb 18 '11 at 14:28
vonjd
10k●21●130
added Feb 18 '11 at 1:17
morganpdx
7,441●21●114
added Feb 16 '11 at 22:59
otibom
1,493●2●9
added Feb 12 '11 at 18:29
PaulRein
2,565●10●37
added Feb 8 '11 at 9:21
user unknown
21.2k●2●43●205
added Feb 6 '11 at 22:18
Rafael Sanchez
51●1
added Feb 3 '11 at 16:11
masterjo
601●7
added Jan 31 '11 at 3:22
bryanpackman
61●2
added Jan 30 '11 at 16:57
imz
1,581●3●17●62
added Jan 30 '11 at 16:52
Fabian ♦ 2
47.4k●29●186●407
added Jan 27 '11 at 16:16
Guillaume Coté
1,327●4●37
added Jan 26 '11 at 18:17
Beska
11.8k●3●42●162
added Jan 23 '11 at 22:12
Rodger Cooley
2,286●11●51
added Jan 19 '11 at 23:57
Mark Robinson
1,152●2●23
added Jan 17 '11 at 13:30
Rushyo
2,952●7●43
added Jan 16 '11 at 12:28
Nanne
20.6k●5●21●95
added Jan 7 '11 at 10:47
user30125
51●1
added Dec 28 '10 at 22:00
mfg
13.6k●1●34●214
added Dec 25 '10 at 18:00
serg
28k●9●69●170
added Dec 20 '10 at 7:13
Chris Jaynes
1,763●4●31
added Dec 18 '10 at 20:37
Mchl
22.6k●2●27●76
added Dec 15 '10 at 6:54
Tianyi Cui
162●5
added Dec 13 '10 at 10:23
Gordon
5,022●18●64
added Dec 9 '10 at 19:00
RegDwight ♦ 2
40.7k●12●127●263
added Dec 9 '10 at 8:29
Steffen Opel
12.3k●1●29●87
added Nov 28 '10 at 13:10
Mnementh
21.4k●8●75●285
added Nov 28 '10 at 13:01
Matteo Riva
12.2k●2●15●61
added Nov 26 '10 at 16:38
kyoto
51●1
added Nov 19 '10 at 20:12
Jeremy Banks ʬʬʬ
23.9k●21●88●248
added Nov 16 '10 at 9:46
automatthias
51●1
added Nov 8 '10 at 17:34
Kay
51●1
added Nov 7 '10 at 7:11
moberley
2,201●11●55
added Nov 3 '10 at 14:22
Pascal
3,739●8●31
added Oct 6 '10 at 19:02
Barthelemy
1,886●6●32
feed icon proposal feed
faq | blog | legal | contact us | feedback always welcome
site design / logo © 2011 stack exchange, inc.; user contributions licensed under cc-wiki with attribution required
rev 2012.2.5.26