Area 51 » Culture

178

followers

Announcements

Skeptic Exchange is already a thriving community skepticexchange.org – rjstelling Jul 11 '10 at 11:03

see also: area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6993/… – sth Jul 11 '10 at 11:44

Can we merge "Skepticism" into this proposal, perhaps? area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6993/… – Tullo Jul 21 '10 at 6:58

show 10 more announcements

39 Example Questions (8 closed)

active newest votes

up vote 27 down vote

added by rjstelling Jul 11 '10 at 10:59

Well you can drown – Notthinking Jul 14 '10 at 10:50

I was thinking more along the lines of diabetes first. – Anonymous Jul 21 '10 at 12:21

up vote 26 down vote

added by Laura Jul 11 '10 at 12:51

	Good question. Having done the Briggs-Meyer test myself I'm not sure. I mean - are there really only 16 types of person? – Anonymous Jul 21 '10 at 12:22
	This is really just comparing psychology to astrology, and so it's covered by the "when is science, science" question below. – danzein Jul 21 '10 at 23:54
	"Work" is awfully broad and there are many different tests. – Christian Jul 22 '10 at 0:12

up vote 25 down vote

added by Leo Jul 15 '10 at 17:18

up vote 23 down vote

added by rjstelling Jul 11 '10 at 10:53

up vote 22 down vote

added by Laura Jul 11 '10 at 12:48

So subjective.. – Heath Hunnicutt Jul 11 '10 at 15:38

Great question! And not subjective at all, there are studies and theories about why people do this, see for example cognitive dissonance, and how do people deal with it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance – Juan A. Navarro Jul 13 '10 at 7:32

I am aware of such theories, Juan. I am also aware of Dennett and the concept of heterophenomenology. At this point of our technology, deciding "why" it is that humans stick to their belief is much different from describing a theory of "how" it is that humans stick to their beliefs. – Heath Hunnicutt Jul 15 '10 at 18:44

From your wikipedia citation: "This is another example of insufficient justification. The children who were only mildly threatened had to justify to themselves why they did not play with the toy. The degree of punishment by itself was not strong enough, so the children had to convince themselves that the toy was not worth playing with in order to resolve their dissonance." Ok that is one way to interpret the result. Stand by for another: – Heath Hunnicutt Jul 15 '10 at 18:47

Suppose the children who received the mild warning perceived that the investigator who delivered the warning did not seem overly emotionally invested in the warning. The strong warning gave the impression of great emotional investment; either the toy must be very harmful, or the warning was disingenuous and the toy might be full of cookies. When the experimenters released the warning, those who were strongly warned believe they would find cookies, while those who were mildly warned concluded only that the toy in questions was a confusing, not-very- important toy. – Heath Hunnicutt Jul 15 '10 at 18:49

show 4 more improvement suggestions

up vote 20 down vote

added by rjstelling Jul 11 '10 at 10:58

Does bringing about the near demise of the Brown Pelican make it 'that bad'? – Jared Updike Jul 13 '10 at 17:51

@Jared: Does allowing millions of people to die from malaria because DDT wasn't available to control mosquitoes make it 'that bad?' – Robert Harvey Jul 14 '10 at 22:15

DDT wasn't that bad; it's banning was stupid and resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths The UN have been using it again since 2006. – Philip Painter Jul 15 '10 at 14:08

Don't argue the question people, wait for the beta site for that! :) Or go to the original skeptic exchange in the meantime where it was originally asked... – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 23:01

up vote 15 down vote

added by user9449 Jul 11 '10 at 11:16

up vote 13 down vote

added by user9449 Jul 11 '10 at 11:16

	It's a good question, but perhaps could be improved and made more specific? How about "How to distinguish science from pseudo-science or simply non-science?" – Juan A. Navarro Jul 13 '10 at 7:34
	When it adheres to the scientific method. – Robert Harvey Jul 14 '10 at 22:18
	I'd vote up if I had more than 5... – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 23:07
	This is a very important question. Juan's rephrase is good. Robert, unfortunately it's not that simple. Philosophy of science is busy trying to sort it out. – danzein Jul 21 '10 at 23:51

up vote 11 down vote

added by Wikis Jul 13 '10 at 13:22

This may be off-topic because it invites discussion and the description here is "Q&A" (implying definite answers). So I'm adding this to "define the border" of this site. – Wikis Jul 13 '10 at 13:24

I think this has to be on-topic; it's so crucial to current discussions in the skeptic community, and to rational positions on religion and by extension supernaturalism of all forms. Sure, it might invite a certain amount of discussion, but that can be managed through comments, editing answers to improve them, and by users up-voting rigorously presented answers in the first place. Given the huge issue that is skepticism and religion, I just don't see how this can be off-topic even if you don't think it's a good example. – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 23:06

@Skrivener thanks - since there have been eight votes (2 on, 6 off) at time of writing, I wonder what others think? – Wikis Jul 22 '10 at 7:30

Perhaps it is pretty hard to define a Q&A for skeptics because they will naturally mistrust any convergence? =:-) – Wikis Jul 26 '10 at 9:59

I agree that this is crucial as skepticism is a tool for many of the faithful in finding and excising the detritus in their faith. However, @mark is right about concerns over definite answers insofar as there is no good single answer, or even set of answer. Maybe a re-phrase to "How can skepticism benefit one's faith?" and posting this as a CW (along with @skrivener 's rigorous maintenance). – mfg Aug 20 '10 at 12:27

show 2 more improvement suggestions

up vote 8 down vote

added by user9449 Jul 11 '10 at 11:15

Wouldn't this be one for the meta-area? – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 22:58

up vote 8 down vote

added by Wikis Jul 15 '10 at 11:21

When believers in the new dogma start killing or forcibly converting followers of the old dogma? - Seriously though, good question. – Anonymous Jul 21 '10 at 12:20

@majjie - thanks! =:-) – Wikis Jul 21 '10 at 13:00

Yeah, good question, although answers would probably just center around how you define mythology as a term, and shifts in cultural norms. – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 22:06

@Skrivener thanks. Indeed, it might be in definition, though "mythology" is clearly recognised as not true whereas religious beliefs are the subject of huge debate. One rephrase of the question is - when does any belief, widely held by society at one moment to be true, come to be recognised as false. It's like if, in 30 years time, people stopped believing in Evolution - when is the "tipping point"? – Wikis Jul 22 '10 at 7:33

up vote 7 down vote

added by rjstelling Jul 11 '10 at 10:55

-1 presuppose that people should be convinced of something without establishing that this something is actually a good idea. I think a valid question could be "Is the swine flu vaccination a good idea?" Questions which amount to "How best to proseletyze" and "How best to expose myself to the same views repeatedly" don't seem skeptical to me. But then, I am not a skeptic although I like my energy stated in ergs. – Heath Hunnicutt Jul 11 '10 at 15:35

+1 Given that vaccines have been exhaustively considered by most active skeptics, it's entirely reasonable for a skeptic who has already come to a rational and widely held conclusion among the skeptical community to ask other skeptics the best way to argue that case, particularly to non-skeptics. – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 21:12

up vote 5 down vote

added by user9449 Jul 11 '10 at 11:17

again another meta discussion. But maybe you could rephrase as "Did the 10:23 movement achieve it goals" but this may still be too subjective. – rjstelling Jul 15 '10 at 15:52

up vote 4 down vote

added by LifeH2O, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Jul 21 '10 at 22:41

Not while Randi still has his million dollars: randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html – danzein Jul 21 '10 at 18:19

up vote 3 down vote

added by thursdaysgeek Aug 6 '10 at 4:03

up vote 2 down vote

added by Notthinking, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Jul 21 '10 at 22:42

	This is a great question but not for the main Q&A area of the site. When the site is set up there will be a meta discussion area and this is the right place for this type of question. – rjstelling Jul 15 '10 at 15:49
	Good off-topic Q then? – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 22:59

up vote 2 down vote

added by thursdaysgeek, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Aug 10 '10 at 20:02

isn't this a question better posed on a semantics Q&A? – mfg Aug 20 '10 at 12:19

up vote 2 down vote

added by Henry Aug 29 '10 at 0:07

up vote 2 down vote

added by rjstelling Sep 2 '10 at 8:05

up vote 1 down vote

added by Heath Hunnicutt Jul 11 '10 at 15:30

lol color me unsurprised at the -1 vote without comment; why would self-described-skeptics want to be 'open' to the idea that they might have some sort of predisposition? – Heath Hunnicutt Jul 11 '10 at 16:08

If there is scientific support for the LIBT as a valid and reliable measure of anything, I can't find it. Also note that it's much more interesting to say something about the argument than about the arguer. – danzein Jul 21 '10 at 18:34

@danzein. Look harder. With regard to statements pertaining to skeptics themselves, what is interesting about skeptics is their lack of meta-skepticism. Skeptics and their movement are incredible because of their bias. – Heath Hunnicutt Jul 21 '10 at 19:13

The paper you seek is 1957, Leary, Coffey -- Interpersonal Diagnosis -- Some Problems of Methodology and Validation – Heath Hunnicutt Jul 21 '10 at 19:22

The question is, imo, a good OT example, because it's not asking for an argument or debate of positions or presentation of evidence, it's just asking for a single, factual piece of information. It seems the questioner has a particular study and conclusion in mind--better to present that and ask a question related to the results, instead of just leading people to try to hunt down the study you feel is so important. – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 21:58

show 5 more improvement suggestions

up vote 0 down vote

added by Laura Jul 11 '10 at 12:59

closed as off topic by Heath Hunnicutt, Blorgbeard, ceejayoz, EdSG, Jenna A Jul 15 '10 at 13:23

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.

	Asks for too much speculation. – Heath Hunnicutt Jul 11 '10 at 15:31
	Excellent off example: vague, open-ended, without relevant context, and unsupported. – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 22:53

up vote 0 down vote

added by Leo Jul 15 '10 at 17:19

closed as off topic by BaldySlaphead, Mark H, NReilingh, Vatine, moberley Aug 8 '10 at 20:01

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 off topic? Skeptics shouldn't confine themselves to being rational about only ghosts and homeopathy. The answer might not be settled, but there's no reason not to present the evidence and arguments – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 22:21

I read that three times as "librarians" – warren Aug 4 '10 at 18:18

This feels much fuzzier to me than tilting at homeopathy or quackery. It is more akin to asking whether skeptics should be <insert religion here>. Certainly, there are rational arguments for and against any of the political movements, but IMHO there are no standards by which to judge a "right" answer. – RBerteig Aug 6 '10 at 8:42

On topic, the answer is 'No', unless you can find evidence the libertarianism works, or might possibly work... – Chris Huang-Leaver Aug 19 '10 at 3:56

I'd say if you rephrased the question to something like "Does the argument in the skeptical movement about libertarianism make sense?" or something like that, it may be interesting. – Tom Morris Sep 6 '10 at 11:27

show 2 more improvement suggestions

up vote 0 down vote

added by kwutchak Jul 30 '10 at 3:52

closed as off topic by Chris Huang-Leaver, Keaanu, Henry, rjstelling, Bristol Skeptics Sep 5 '10 at 14:04

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.

	The question assumes that only people of a particular demographic are skeptics. – Chris Huang-Leaver Aug 19 '10 at 4:03
	Although I havent voted, I would say it's off-topic since the site wants to be discussing/researching woo, rather than the skeptic community at large. – mfg Aug 20 '10 at 12:21

up vote 0 down vote

added by Henry Aug 29 '10 at 0:06

up vote 0 down vote

added by Henry Aug 29 '10 at 0:06

up vote 0 down vote

added by Henry Aug 29 '10 at 0:08

up vote -1 down vote

added by Wikis Jul 12 '10 at 21:45

closed as off topic by Juan A. Navarro, user10102, user10636, BaldySlaphead, MikeScott8 Jul 16 '10 at 3:48

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 is intended to be an off topic example! That is, it is unnecessarily argumentative and the question contains an unfounded assumption. – Wikis Jul 12 '10 at 21:46

Looking at the FAQ, the things you cite seem to place a question as a poor on-topic example, but not necessarily a good off-topic one. Thoughts? – Skrivener Jul 21 '10 at 22:50

@Skrivener - I don't really have anything to add to my comment above - I suppose I meant to be someone having a rant and disrupting the community. – Wikis Jul 22 '10 at 7:36

up vote -1 down vote

added by murgatroid99 Aug 2 '10 at 17:10

closed as off topic by Vatine, warren, RBerteig, keithjgrant, deceze Aug 26 '10 at 6:04

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 created this to be off topic because the site should be about discussing "woo" instead of validating it. – murgatroid99 Aug 2 '10 at 17:11

Take out the chips and beer, obviously. – Stefano Borini Aug 15 '10 at 18:43

It might be useful to have this question on the site, with the accepted answer being a referral to badalien.org, a website run by a prominent skeptic who tries to help these poor delusional people. – Henry Aug 29 '10 at 0:25

up vote -1 down vote

added by keithjgrant Aug 24 '10 at 16:48

	I think most Snopes-type questions would be great on-topic questions. For example, right now skepticexchange has a question about a girl who allegedly produces crystals in her eyes. – keithjgrant Aug 24 '10 at 16:50
	This question can be on-topic if it is re-phrased as "What is the evidence for or against [phenomenon/suspicious claim]?" – Henry Aug 29 '10 at 0:22

up vote -2 down vote

added by talonx, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Jul 21 '10 at 22:43

closed as off topic by Leo, BaldySlaphead, Mongus Pong, Keaanu, rjstelling Sep 6 '10 at 8:24

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 -2 down vote

added by user10102 Jul 13 '10 at 22:20

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

added by user12055 Jul 21 '10 at 12:18

up vote -4 down vote

added by Laura Jul 11 '10 at 12:55

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

added by Laura Jul 11 '10 at 13:02

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 A. Navarro 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

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 A. Navarro 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

added by Wikis Jul 12 '10 at 21:44

Because the forum states "opposes woo and pseudoscience" - not sure that is the case? – Wikis Jul 13 '10 at 7:34

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 A. Navarro 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

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

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 improvement suggestion

up vote -4 down vote

added by Philip Painter Jul 15 '10 at 14:09

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

added by Henry Aug 29 '10 at 0:06

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

added by user10102 Jul 13 '10 at 22:08

	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

added by user9449 Jul 11 '10 at 11:16

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