2 added 6 characters in body
source | link

Either 1 or 4 depending. Is the phenomenon more notable of the specific cases? It's important to understand this in both questions and answers.

For example: "Does the Lochness monster exist?" is a question about a specific case, answering that in general dinosaurs are extinct, or that lake monsters don't exist, is a bad answer. Answers should be specifically about the case.

Another example: "Do UFOs exist?" is a general question, answering by citing a few debunked cases won't cut it, even if they are mentioned in the question. The answer should be a based on a general study.

As a general rule it's always better that the question is about the MOST NOTABLE claim, so in some cases we will want to generalize a question and other times we will need to restrict it. This will give the question the most chances to be answered.

As for the answers, the usual rules apply: only answers based of specific, pertinent facts and evidence. No theoretical answers, no unreferenced answers, no off-hand dismissals.

Either 1 or 4 depending. Is the phenomenon more notable of the specific cases? It's important to understand this in both questions and answers.

For example: "Does the Lochness monster exist?" is a question a specific case, answering that in general dinosaurs are extinct, or that lake monsters don't exist, is a bad answer. Answers should be specifically about the case.

Another example: "Do UFOs exist?" is a general question, answering by citing a few debunked cases won't cut it, even if they are mentioned in the question. The answer should be a based on a general study.

As a general rule it's always better that the question is about the MOST NOTABLE claim, so in some cases we will want to generalize a question and other times we will need to restrict it. This will give the question the most chances to be answered.

As for the answers, the usual rules apply: only answers based of specific, pertinent facts and evidence. No theoretical answers, no unreferenced answers, no off-hand dismissals.

Either 1 or 4 depending. Is the phenomenon more notable of the specific cases? It's important to understand this in both questions and answers.

For example: "Does the Lochness monster exist?" is a question about a specific case, answering that in general dinosaurs are extinct, or that lake monsters don't exist, is a bad answer. Answers should be specifically about the case.

Another example: "Do UFOs exist?" is a general question, answering by citing a few debunked cases won't cut it, even if they are mentioned in the question. The answer should be a based on a general study.

As a general rule it's always better that the question is about the MOST NOTABLE claim, so in some cases we will want to generalize a question and other times we will need to restrict it. This will give the question the most chances to be answered.

As for the answers, the usual rules apply: only answers based of specific, pertinent facts and evidence. No theoretical answers, no unreferenced answers, no off-hand dismissals.

1
source | link

Either 1 or 4 depending. Is the phenomenon more notable of the specific cases? It's important to understand this in both questions and answers.

For example: "Does the Lochness monster exist?" is a question a specific case, answering that in general dinosaurs are extinct, or that lake monsters don't exist, is a bad answer. Answers should be specifically about the case.

Another example: "Do UFOs exist?" is a general question, answering by citing a few debunked cases won't cut it, even if they are mentioned in the question. The answer should be a based on a general study.

As a general rule it's always better that the question is about the MOST NOTABLE claim, so in some cases we will want to generalize a question and other times we will need to restrict it. This will give the question the most chances to be answered.

As for the answers, the usual rules apply: only answers based of specific, pertinent facts and evidence. No theoretical answers, no unreferenced answers, no off-hand dismissals.