Area 51 » Science

followers

Follow It!

Announcements

If this isn't for experts, then who will answer the questions? – Blorgbeard Jun 9 '10 at 9:14

@Blorgbeard: good question but I think that such a forum (1) can play an important role in science popularisation, especially as a counter-pole to the constant misrepresentation in the media, and (2) experts might still be drawn to it, because of (1). Popularising science is a quite important (and interesting!) part of science, and unfortunately one that gets a raw deal. – Konrad Rudolph Jun 15 '10 at 8:27

I used to get annoyed at the extremely basic questions I'd find on Stack Overflow sometimes thinking "Why couldn't he have found this information in the first chapter of a book on X, or in the first hit from a google search on X". Then I realized that part of the draw of the experts is being able to act as teachers to even the most beginning students. I submit that if there were a 'SO for beginners' it would be almost deserted. I think this should be folded in with another science topic, instead of being a poor cousin where newbies are sent for asking 'dumb' questions. – Jherico Jun 23 '10 at 17:05

show 17 more announcements

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

52 Example Questions (8 closed)

active oldest votes

up vote 1 down vote

added by Stefano Borini Jun 22 '10 at 17:01

up vote 1 down vote

added by Stefano Borini, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Jul 10 '10 at 1:22

up vote 1 down vote

added by gmale Jul 15 '10 at 6:50

up vote 1 down vote

added by gmale Jul 15 '10 at 6:51

up vote 1 down vote

added by Barthelemy Oct 6 '10 at 0:21

Good question. Related to great question (in Feynman texts), "Does lightning charge or discharge the atmosphere?" – sigoldberg1 Oct 27 '10 at 20:51

up vote 1 down vote

added by Mnementh Nov 13 '10 at 22:32

Nice question! Unfortunately, I'm out of points :(. – Gaurav Dec 1 '10 at 5:45

up vote 0 down vote

added by rlb.usa Jun 10 '10 at 16:14

I can't decide whether this is scientifically interesting or just home maintenance how-to. – DustyD Jun 17 '10 at 20:28

up vote 0 down vote

added by Konrad Rudolph Jun 15 '10 at 8:23

closed as off topic by Blorgbeard, Vortico, Michał Piaskowski, Palmin, David Grellscheid Jun 21 '10 at 22:11

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.

Computer science isn’t a natural science. – Konrad Rudolph Jun 15 '10 at 8:23

up vote 0 down vote

added by Michał Piaskowski Jun 17 '10 at 13:45

closed as off topic by David Grellscheid, Palmin, David Zaslavsky, Stefano Borini, Kyra Jun 22 '10 at 19:28

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.

up vote 0 down vote

added by Wolkenmacher Jun 28 '10 at 23:13

closed as off topic by Nick Gotch, Tobias Kienzler, Michael, Edgar, Dori Dec 9 '10 at 6:35

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.

up vote 0 down vote

added by Blorgbeard, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Nov 27 '10 at 16:26

Probably not both sufficiently and at the level of detail expected for this forum. – sgeek Jul 13 '10 at 22:57

up vote 0 down vote

added by gmale Jul 15 '10 at 6:51

	thereby? Do you have actual proof that there can absolutely be no life without water? (sorry, had to ask...) – Tobias Kienzler Jul 16 '10 at 8:53
	The way I read that sentence, "most likely" applies to both "liquid water" and "life". – Blorgbeard Jul 16 '10 at 10:47

up vote 0 down vote

added by J. M. Sep 17 '10 at 12:31

up vote 0 down vote

added by J. M. Sep 17 '10 at 12:36

up vote 0 down vote

added by J. M. Sep 17 '10 at 12:37

up vote 0 down vote

added by Gerard Oct 20 '10 at 12:07

up vote 0 down vote

added by Merlyn Morgan-Graham Dec 16 '10 at 4:08

up vote -1 down vote

added by Juan Manuel Jun 10 '10 at 17:28

closed as off topic by Konrad Rudolph, Blorgbeard, Vortico, Philippe Leybaert, Michał Piaskowski Jun 17 '10 at 13:56

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 posting it as off topic, but I don't know... – Juan Manuel Jun 10 '10 at 17:41

it is a good one. but the best off-topic questions would be those that should be asked on physics area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908 or chemistry area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4964 or etc... – Tobias Kienzler Jun 11 '10 at 7:27

Of course this generalized example is off-topic, but could it be edited to be a little more specific? – Vortico Jun 15 '10 at 18:09

up vote -1 down vote

added by Blorgbeard Jun 15 '10 at 10:35

closed as off topic by Konrad Rudolph, Vortico, nik, Kyra, Palmin Jun 18 '10 at 21:44

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.

	Are pseudo-science questions closed as off-topic, or do we leave it open and answer with "Crystals don't work; see a doctor."? – Blorgbeard Jun 15 '10 at 10:36
	I think it might get an answer (especially when health-related) but it’s still an off-topic question. – Konrad Rudolph Jun 15 '10 at 10:56
	So, such a question gets a comment or answer along `Blorgbeard`'s lines and then gets closed as off-topic? that would suit me. I would not like to see a 'natural science' form (popular or otherwise) discuss healing with crystals, unless its got something to with magnification of light, maybe. But, that is just me. – nik Jun 17 '10 at 16:36
	I've met too many people sincerely interested in a scientific explanation of something, clueless about the difference between real science and the new agey stuff. Leave room for these kinds of questions, and use as opportunity to explain this difference. – DarenW Aug 3 '10 at 3:31

up vote -1 down vote

added by DonnyD Jun 22 '10 at 17:03

closed as off topic by Kyra, Tobias Kienzler, DustyD, Konrad Rudolph, Daniel Trebbien Jun 25 '10 at 20:23

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.

"go see a doctor instead of asking the internet" – Tobias Kienzler Jun 23 '10 at 10:28

up vote -6 down vote

added by Tobias Kienzler Jun 15 '10 at 11:43

closed as off topic by Philippe Leybaert, Konrad Rudolph, Mr Shark, Christian, DarenW Aug 3 '10 at 3:17

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.

	This question offends atheists. – WTP Aug 14 '10 at 6:19
	@Koning: no offense meant - actually I wanted to mock creationists... – Tobias Kienzler Aug 16 '10 at 8:57

up vote -12 down vote

added by Michał Piaskowski Jun 17 '10 at 13:58

Why 1,000 km/s? – Vortico Jun 17 '10 at 17:13

Why "not a good example"? – Michał Piaskowski Jun 17 '10 at 19:56

Because it's not a real question. It's the same as "why does hydrogen only have one proton?" or "why is 1+1 equal to 2?" – Philippe Leybaert Jun 17 '10 at 21:22

"Why is the sky blue?", "How does a rainbow work?", and "How does a microwave work?" are also physics questions and they seem to be well received. What is the perceived difference between this question and those? – sgeek Jun 26 '10 at 2:59

@Vortico et al, I would begin to answer this with something along the lines of "We do not currently know (and it is more a question of metaphysics) but perhaps we should discuss the physical constants and their effects on our universe." Just because we can't give the answer they think they're looking for doesn't mean we can't have a good discussion and contribute to the user's understanding. I will propose a related question for comparison. – sgeek Jun 26 '10 at 4:05

show 8 more comments