Skip to main content
Skeptics

Return to Answer

replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

There are several levels of depth at which you can examine a claim. Suppose there is a claim "X".

Level 1: Is X true? Did X happen? etc.

Some examples:

These questions directly present and challenge the claim. Answers to these questions will necessarily present the evidence. If there is no consensus in the evidence, a good answer will present all sides, avoiding false equivalencies or undue weight for fringe theories.

This is where this site excels: questions that present a notable claim to be examined.

One-sided Level 2: Is there evidence refuting X?

I think this type of question is not appropriate for this site. It is basically asking for us to find sources for one side of an argument. If a claim is presented to be be examined, it should be available for examination from either side. It would be better to simply ask "Is X true?".

Level 2: Is the hypothesis that X is true credible? Is the hypothesis that X happened credible?

I believe this is the type of question that Rob had asked. He was asking for evaluation of the evidence that we would have presented at a level 1 inquiry.

Example:

  • Is the endurance running hypothesis of human evolution credible?

In this case, we have to find evidence about the evidence. We would need to find sources that make statements about the evidence we would have used at level 1. Second, it isn't clear what the notable claim being challenged is in this case. Is the notable claim "X is true"? Or is the notable claim "the hypothesis that X is true is credible"?

Level 3: Are the sources that claim that "the evidence for the hypotheses "X is true" is credible" credible?

We can just keep going deeper. And what is the point?

Summary

  • Present the notable claim that you want examined.
  • Evidence will be collected and included as part of any answer.
  • The credibility of that evidence will inform upvotes/downvotes/comments on an answer.
  • Answers using more credible or complete evidence will have higher scores.

There are several levels of depth at which you can examine a claim. Suppose there is a claim "X".

Level 1: Is X true? Did X happen? etc.

Some examples:

These questions directly present and challenge the claim. Answers to these questions will necessarily present the evidence. If there is no consensus in the evidence, a good answer will present all sides, avoiding false equivalencies or undue weight for fringe theories.

This is where this site excels: questions that present a notable claim to be examined.

One-sided Level 2: Is there evidence refuting X?

I think this type of question is not appropriate for this site. It is basically asking for us to find sources for one side of an argument. If a claim is presented to be be examined, it should be available for examination from either side. It would be better to simply ask "Is X true?".

Level 2: Is the hypothesis that X is true credible? Is the hypothesis that X happened credible?

I believe this is the type of question that Rob had asked. He was asking for evaluation of the evidence that we would have presented at a level 1 inquiry.

Example:

  • Is the endurance running hypothesis of human evolution credible?

In this case, we have to find evidence about the evidence. We would need to find sources that make statements about the evidence we would have used at level 1. Second, it isn't clear what the notable claim being challenged is in this case. Is the notable claim "X is true"? Or is the notable claim "the hypothesis that X is true is credible"?

Level 3: Are the sources that claim that "the evidence for the hypotheses "X is true" is credible" credible?

We can just keep going deeper. And what is the point?

Summary

  • Present the notable claim that you want examined.
  • Evidence will be collected and included as part of any answer.
  • The credibility of that evidence will inform upvotes/downvotes/comments on an answer.
  • Answers using more credible or complete evidence will have higher scores.

There are several levels of depth at which you can examine a claim. Suppose there is a claim "X".

Level 1: Is X true? Did X happen? etc.

Some examples:

These questions directly present and challenge the claim. Answers to these questions will necessarily present the evidence. If there is no consensus in the evidence, a good answer will present all sides, avoiding false equivalencies or undue weight for fringe theories.

This is where this site excels: questions that present a notable claim to be examined.

One-sided Level 2: Is there evidence refuting X?

I think this type of question is not appropriate for this site. It is basically asking for us to find sources for one side of an argument. If a claim is presented to be be examined, it should be available for examination from either side. It would be better to simply ask "Is X true?".

Level 2: Is the hypothesis that X is true credible? Is the hypothesis that X happened credible?

I believe this is the type of question that Rob had asked. He was asking for evaluation of the evidence that we would have presented at a level 1 inquiry.

Example:

  • Is the endurance running hypothesis of human evolution credible?

In this case, we have to find evidence about the evidence. We would need to find sources that make statements about the evidence we would have used at level 1. Second, it isn't clear what the notable claim being challenged is in this case. Is the notable claim "X is true"? Or is the notable claim "the hypothesis that X is true is credible"?

Level 3: Are the sources that claim that "the evidence for the hypotheses "X is true" is credible" credible?

We can just keep going deeper. And what is the point?

Summary

  • Present the notable claim that you want examined.
  • Evidence will be collected and included as part of any answer.
  • The credibility of that evidence will inform upvotes/downvotes/comments on an answer.
  • Answers using more credible or complete evidence will have higher scores.
added 28 characters in body
Source Link
user5582
user5582

There are several levels of depth at which you can examine a claim. Suppose there is a claim "X".

Level 1: Is X true? Did X happen? etc.

Some examples:

These questions directly present and challenge the claim. Answers to these questions will necessarily present the evidence. If there is no consensus in the evidence, a good answer will present all sides, avoiding false equivalencies or undue weight for fringe theories.

This is where this site excels: questions that present a notable claim to be examined.

One-sided Level 2: Is there evidence refuting X?

I think this type of question is not appropriate for this site. It is basically asking for us to find sources for one side of an argument. If a claim is presented to be be examined, it should be available for examination from either side. It would be better to simply ask "Is X true?".

Level 2: Is the hypothesis that X is true credible? Is the hypothesis that X happened credible?

I believe this is the type of question that Rob had asked. He was asking for evaluation of the evidence that we would have presented at a level 1 inquiry.

Example:

  • Is the endurance running hypothesis of human evolution credible?

In this case, we have to find evidence about the evidence. We would need to find sources that make statements about the evidence we would have used at level 1. Second, it isn't clear what the notable claim being challenged is in this case. Is the notable claim "X is true"? Or is the notable claim "the hypothesis that X is true is credible"?

Level 3: Are the sources that claim that "the evidence for the hypotheses "X is true" is credible" credible?

We can just keep going deeper. And what is the point?

Summary

  • Present the notable claim that you want examined.
  • Evidence will be collected and included as part of any answer.
  • The credibility of that evidence will inform upvotes/downvotes/comments on an answer.
  • Answers using more credible or complete evidence will have higher scores.

There are several levels of depth at which you can examine a claim. Suppose there is a claim "X".

Level 1: Is X true? Did X happen? etc.

Some examples:

These questions directly present and challenge the claim. Answers to these questions will necessarily present the evidence. If there is no consensus in the evidence, a good answer will present all sides, avoiding false equivalencies or undue weight for fringe theories.

This is where this site excels: questions that present a notable claim to be examined.

One-sided Level 2: Is there evidence refuting X?

I think this type of question is not appropriate for this site. It is basically asking for us to find sources. If a claim is presented to be be examined, it should be available for examination from either side. It would be better to simply ask "Is X true?".

Level 2: Is the hypothesis that X is true credible? Is the hypothesis that X happened credible?

I believe this is the type of question that Rob had asked. He was asking for evaluation of the evidence that we would have presented at a level 1 inquiry.

Example:

  • Is the endurance running hypothesis of human evolution credible?

In this case, we have to find evidence about the evidence. We would need to find sources that make statements about the evidence we would have used at level 1. Second, it isn't clear what the notable claim being challenged is in this case. Is the notable claim "X is true"? Or is the notable claim "the hypothesis that X is true is credible"?

Level 3: Are the sources that claim that "the evidence for the hypotheses "X is true" is credible" credible?

We can just keep going deeper. And what is the point?

Summary

  • Present the notable claim that you want examined.
  • Evidence will be collected and included as part of any answer.
  • The credibility of that evidence will inform upvotes/downvotes/comments on an answer.
  • Answers using more credible or complete evidence will have higher scores.

There are several levels of depth at which you can examine a claim. Suppose there is a claim "X".

Level 1: Is X true? Did X happen? etc.

Some examples:

These questions directly present and challenge the claim. Answers to these questions will necessarily present the evidence. If there is no consensus in the evidence, a good answer will present all sides, avoiding false equivalencies or undue weight for fringe theories.

This is where this site excels: questions that present a notable claim to be examined.

One-sided Level 2: Is there evidence refuting X?

I think this type of question is not appropriate for this site. It is basically asking for us to find sources for one side of an argument. If a claim is presented to be be examined, it should be available for examination from either side. It would be better to simply ask "Is X true?".

Level 2: Is the hypothesis that X is true credible? Is the hypothesis that X happened credible?

I believe this is the type of question that Rob had asked. He was asking for evaluation of the evidence that we would have presented at a level 1 inquiry.

Example:

  • Is the endurance running hypothesis of human evolution credible?

In this case, we have to find evidence about the evidence. We would need to find sources that make statements about the evidence we would have used at level 1. Second, it isn't clear what the notable claim being challenged is in this case. Is the notable claim "X is true"? Or is the notable claim "the hypothesis that X is true is credible"?

Level 3: Are the sources that claim that "the evidence for the hypotheses "X is true" is credible" credible?

We can just keep going deeper. And what is the point?

Summary

  • Present the notable claim that you want examined.
  • Evidence will be collected and included as part of any answer.
  • The credibility of that evidence will inform upvotes/downvotes/comments on an answer.
  • Answers using more credible or complete evidence will have higher scores.
Source Link
user5582
user5582

There are several levels of depth at which you can examine a claim. Suppose there is a claim "X".

Level 1: Is X true? Did X happen? etc.

Some examples:

These questions directly present and challenge the claim. Answers to these questions will necessarily present the evidence. If there is no consensus in the evidence, a good answer will present all sides, avoiding false equivalencies or undue weight for fringe theories.

This is where this site excels: questions that present a notable claim to be examined.

One-sided Level 2: Is there evidence refuting X?

I think this type of question is not appropriate for this site. It is basically asking for us to find sources. If a claim is presented to be be examined, it should be available for examination from either side. It would be better to simply ask "Is X true?".

Level 2: Is the hypothesis that X is true credible? Is the hypothesis that X happened credible?

I believe this is the type of question that Rob had asked. He was asking for evaluation of the evidence that we would have presented at a level 1 inquiry.

Example:

  • Is the endurance running hypothesis of human evolution credible?

In this case, we have to find evidence about the evidence. We would need to find sources that make statements about the evidence we would have used at level 1. Second, it isn't clear what the notable claim being challenged is in this case. Is the notable claim "X is true"? Or is the notable claim "the hypothesis that X is true is credible"?

Level 3: Are the sources that claim that "the evidence for the hypotheses "X is true" is credible" credible?

We can just keep going deeper. And what is the point?

Summary

  • Present the notable claim that you want examined.
  • Evidence will be collected and included as part of any answer.
  • The credibility of that evidence will inform upvotes/downvotes/comments on an answer.
  • Answers using more credible or complete evidence will have higher scores.