Timeline for If a question is challenging high-school level facts, are references required to support them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 23, 2016 at 11:53 | comment | added | DavePhD | @Sklivvz true, it would be better to determine density of solid and liquid, over a range of temperatures, with multiple replicates at each temperature point, and calculate uncertainty in the density. And repeat for a variety of fats, not just 1. | |
| Feb 23, 2016 at 4:51 | comment | added | Sklivvz Mod | @DavePhD No, but such an experiment, while educational, is not good experimental science either. It would certainly not be acceptable in my high school science class, for example. | |
| Feb 23, 2016 at 2:24 | comment | added | DavePhD | @Sklivvz ok, maybe I misunderstood. Would an answer like mine here: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/41585/… be ok on SkepticsSE ? | |
| Feb 22, 2016 at 23:57 | comment | added | Sklivvz Mod | @DavePhD that's not entirely fair. We allow math. I'd love if we could allow science -- real science. What we actually disallow are "here's a toy model to sustain my wrong answer" or "here's some data with no error analysis to prove my point" answers. While these are not allowed, they aren't real science, either | |
| Feb 22, 2016 at 13:06 | comment | added | DavePhD | @Oddthinking SkepticsSE doesn't allow math to find truth; answers that use math are closed as theoretical. Answers that use science to find truth are closed too, for example if someone starts from quantum mechanics postulates and proves or disproves the OP, that answer would be closed as theoretical. If someone did an experiment to see if aluminum foil sharpens scissors: close as original research. It's more a watered down version of court, with some trial by combat. Here the person asking the question can answer it and accept his/her own answer, which is different than court. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 23:37 | comment | added | Oddthinking Mod | Also, I reject outright "good enough for the court of law => good enough for skeptics.SE". There are many methods for finding the truth (maths, courts, philosophy, prayer, trial by combat), Skeptics.SE focusses on one of these alone: scientific skepticism. It has different standards to a court of law. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 23:34 | comment | added | Oddthinking Mod | I don't see the contradiction. We are discussing opinions and philosophy on meta.stackexchange.com, not facts about the world on skeptics.stackexchange.com. We have different referencing requirements on the two sites. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 17:43 | history | answered | DavePhD | CC BY-SA 3.0 |