Return to Answer

##Can you challenge basic science?

Yes, you are allowed to challenge basic science. I have addressed this issue in detail on a different meta-skeptics question, and it seems to have enough upvotes to have community support.

For example: if Barry Marshall had posted:

Science says [ref, ref, ref] that peptic ulcers are caused by stress, but I am skeptical. I can't see how infectious agents have been eradicated as a potential cause. Is there evidence that stress causes peptic ulcers?

that would be acceptable. (Perversely, his anecdote about swallowing Helicobacter pylori wouldn't be accepted in an answer!)

##Can you challenge mathematics? geometry?

In principle, I would say yes. For example, it was only relatively recently (i.e. early 19th Century) that Euclid's fifth postulate was challenged and (to a limited extent) overturned.

Similarly, maths proofs can be flawed, and challenged.

However, there are better places to issue these challenges, where there are more experts to look at it: http://mathematics.stackexchange.com and http://mathoverflow.net. I would recommend posting such questions there.

Can you challenge logic iself?

This is a little more contentious, in my mind. Such a challenge would almost certainly be beyond the ability of our tools to tackle it, because our tools are rooted in the very logic being challenged. If you want to challenge the legitimacy of inductive reasoning, for example, then http://philosophy.stackexchange.com is going to be a better place.

Second point

The link to "Don't Be a Dick" is actually more appropriate to the 'community being respectful' sentence. I agree that it is misplaced, and should be has been edited.

As to the contradiction, I think it boils down to this: Science can be wrong. The way science fixes itself is with more science.

So, if you think a particular scientific theory is wrong, welcome. If you think the hole it leaves should be filled without reference to the scientific method, you will be disappointed here.

I am open to wording to better cover this in the New User Welcome.

Can you challenge basic science?

Yes, you are allowed to challenge basic science. I have addressed this issue in detail on a different meta-skeptics question, and it seems to have enough upvotes to have community support.

For example: if Barry Marshall had posted:

Science says [ref, ref, ref] that peptic ulcers are caused by stress, but I am skeptical. I can't see how infectious agents have been eradicated as a potential cause. Is there evidence that stress causes peptic ulcers?

that would be acceptable. (Perversely, his anecdote about swallowing Helicobacter pylori wouldn't be accepted in an answer!)

Can you challenge mathematics? geometry?

In principle, I would say yes. For example, it was only relatively recently (i.e. early 19th Century) that Euclid's fifth postulate was challenged and (to a limited extent) overturned.

Similarly, maths proofs can be flawed, and challenged.

However, there are better places to issue these challenges, where there are more experts to look at it: http://mathematics.stackexchange.com and http://mathoverflow.net. I would recommend posting such questions there.

Can you challenge logic iself?

This is a little more contentious, in my mind. Such a challenge would almost certainly be beyond the ability of our tools to tackle it, because our tools are rooted in the very logic being challenged. If you want to challenge the legitimacy of inductive reasoning, for example, then http://philosophy.stackexchange.com is going to be a better place.

Second point

The link to "Don't Be a Dick" is actually more appropriate to the 'community being respectful' sentence. I agree that it is misplaced, and should be has been edited.

As to the contradiction, I think it boils down to this: Science can be wrong. The way science fixes itself is with more science.

So, if you think a particular scientific theory is wrong, welcome. If you think the hole it leaves should be filled without reference to the scientific method, you will be disappointed here.

I am open to wording to better cover this in the New User Welcome.

##Can you challenge basic science?

Yes, you are allowed to challenge basic science. I have addressed this issue in detail on a different meta-skeptics question, and it seems to have enough upvotes to have community support.

For example: if Barry Marshall had posted:

Science says [ref, ref, ref] that peptic ulcers are caused by stress, but I am skeptical. I can't see how infectious agents have been eradicated as a potential cause. Is there evidence that stress causes peptic ulcers?

that would be acceptable. (Perversely, his anecdote about swallowing Helicobacter pylori wouldn't be accepted in an answer!)

##Can you challenge mathematics? geometry?

In principle, I would say yes. For example, it was only relatively recently (i.e. early 19th Century) that Euclid's fifth postulate was challenged and (to a limited extent) overturned.

Similarly, maths proofs can be flawed, and challenged.

However, there are better places to issue these challenges, where there are more experts to look at it: http://mathematics.stackexchange.com and http://mathoverflow.net. I would recommend posting such questions there.

Can you challenge logic iself?

This is a little more contentious, in my mind. Such a challenge would almost certainly be beyond the ability of our tools to tackle it, because our tools are rooted in the very logic being challenged. If you want to challenge the legitimacy of inductive reasoning, for example, then http://philosophy.stackexchange.com is going to be a better place.

Second point

The link to "Don't Be a Dick" is actually more appropriate to the 'community being respectful' sentence. I agree that it is misplaced, and should be has been edited.

As to the contradiction, I think it boils down to this: Science can be wrong. The way science fixes itself is with more science.

So, if you think a particular scientific theory is wrong, welcome. If you think the hole it leaves should be filled without reference to the scientific method, you will be disappointed here.

I am open to wording to better cover this in the New User Welcome.

##Can you challenge basic science?

Yes, you are allowed to challenge basic science. I have addressed this issue in detail on a different meta-skeptics question, and it seems to have enough upvotes to have community support.

For example: if Barry Marshall had posted:

Science says [ref, ref, ref] that peptic ulcers are caused by stress, but I am skeptical. I can't see how infectious agents have been eradicated as a potential cause. Is there evidence that stress causes peptic ulcers?

that would be acceptable. (Perversely, his anecdote about swallowing Helicobacter pylori wouldn't be accepted in an answer!)

##Can you challenge mathematics? geometry?

In principle, I would say yes. For example, it was only relatively recently (i.e. early 19th Century) that Euclid's fifth postulate was challenged and (to a limited extent) overturned.

Similarly, maths proofs can be flawed, and challenged.

However, there are better places to issue these challenges, where there are more experts to look at it: http://mathematics.stackexchange.com and http://mathoverflow.net. I would recommend posting such questions there.

Can you challenge logic iself?

This is a little more contentious, in my mind. Such a challenge would almost certainly be beyond the ability of our tools to tackle it, because our tools are rooted in the very logic being challenged. If you want to challenge the legitimacy of inductive reasoning, for example, then http://philosophy.stackexchange.com is going to be a better place.

Second point

The link to "Don't Be a Dick" is actually more appropriate to the 'community being respectful' sentence. I agree that it is misplaced, and should be has been edited.

As to the contradiction, I think it boils down to this: Science can be wrong. The way science fixes itself is with more science.

So, if you think a particular scientific theory is wrong, welcome. If you think the hole it leaves should be filled without reference to the scientific method, you will be disappointed here.

I am open to wording to better cover this in the New User Welcome.