Maybe I don't get the purpose of this site quite yet, but is negative information the preferred information. I provided an answer that was supportive of a theory and immediately got downvoted, so it seems that the tone is you are supposed to criticise theories, not support them, is that right? Is the idea to poke holes in theories, only?

| |
  • 2
    Wikipedia and a blog do not a reliable source make. – JasonR Feb 5 '15 at 15:17

I would speculate that your answer received downvotes because it made assertions not supported by evidence. The only two links in that answer were a Wikipedia link and a blog post. The requirements for answers on this site are quite different from other stack exchange sites since this is dedicated to skepticism. Please check the FAQ regarding this site.

| |
  • What FAQ? I see 4 choices under Help and none of them are FAQ. – Tyler Durden Feb 4 '15 at 20:59
  • 1
    Sorry on my phone, so I normally have a link bookmarked on my laptop. It's one of the meta questions here about what constitutes a good answer – Larian LeQuella Feb 4 '15 at 21:00
  • I guess I don't understand why you think my "assertions are unsupported by the evidence". The OP asks did Atlantis exist, and I "asserted" that it could have been the Tartessos culture which is a FACT and cited the work of a a respected anthropologist linking Tartessos to Atlantis which is evidence it existed. What am I missing here? – Tyler Durden Feb 4 '15 at 21:02
  • 1
    @TylerDurden Larian might mean the Welcome to New Users and/or FAQ: What makes an answer good on Skeptics.SE? ... the 'FAQ' topics are these ones with the 'faq' meta-tag. – ChrisW Feb 5 '15 at 1:54
  • 1
    @TylerDurden See also May I cite a single article? which list of a hierarchy of examples of less reliable versus more reliable types of reference. – ChrisW Feb 5 '15 at 3:29

Maybe I don't get the purpose of this site quite yet

Maybe the purpose of this site can be summarized by:

I didn't downvote your answer, but in summary I think that what your answer says is, "There was an ancient civilization called Tartessos, which someone has written about on their blog."

Is there any way in which your answer is better than Wikipedia's 'Location hypotheses of Atlantis'? The only way in which I think your answer might be better is that it's much shorter. Could you at least say why you chose to mention Tartessos, and not mention any of the dozen other theories? Or why the only reference you cited (apart from Wikipedia) is Professor Freund's blog?

| |
  • The advantage of my answer is that focuses on the most probable theory. The OP probably has read the wikipedia article which is why he is confused. Listing 25 half-baked, highly improbable theories will not help the OP. What he wants is to be zeroed in on plausible, scientifically based rationale(s) for Atlantis, which is what I provided. – Tyler Durden Feb 5 '15 at 2:50
  • 1
    Well I'm not trying to argue with you: I'm trying to answer your question by playing devil's advocate. Your answer seemed to say, "It could have been civilization X because person Y has written a blog about that." I don't know. I suppose we do like "critical" answers in the sense of "critical thinking". Some of my answers are negative; some are positive; and some are nuanced? You just tried to answer a question which no-one had tried to answer in three years: maybe it's not you, maybe that one's not a question that it's easy to answer well. – ChrisW Feb 5 '15 at 3:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .