How do we know where to draw the line at skeptics.SE? In other words, what tests can we use to know we are 1) being skeptical enough, as in sufficiently skeptical (a "not too cold, not too hot, but just right"), and 2) helping encourage free-thinking (avoiding confirmation bias, or perhaps more importantly even community bias, given the community Q&A model)?
Theoretical Example #1: a Q&A is completed, but something is lacking in the accepted answer, leaving room for further skepticism (it answers the question, but before much more thought leads to other questions or re-questioning the original question).
Theoretical Example #2: based on the available evidence/sources, it is clear there are two (or more, e.g. multiple) and distinct schools of thought operating on the same body evidence. Hence we now have the possibility for two valid answers citing the same evidence. How can we support identifying the (or a) better answer?
In a nutshell: How do we help users raise the community level of critical thinking? Can we document here a bullet-point list of tests to help ensure quality of answers (although I'm sure some might help with questions, too)?
List of possibly related questions (esp. the first few):
- How does the StackExchange model work for Skeptical Analysis?
- Pros & Cons of SE system for TRICKY skeptical questions?
- Do we apply scientific skepticism at Skeptics.SE?
- How do we know that our references are reliable?
- How pedantic should we be?
- FAQ: What are theoretical answers?
- FAQ: Welcome to New Users
- FAQ: Must all questions be notable?
- The FAQ talks about applying skeptics
- How should we enforce notability?
- FAQ: What makes an answer good on Skeptics.SE?
- How much research do we expect before someone asks a question?