According the this site's tour, skeptics is a question and answer site for applying scientific skepticism, and I understand that this skepticism must be applied to notable claims. These are clear and respectable goals.
However, what I see in this site's answers is mostly fact-checking. As a senior student of science, I learned about the scientific method in many courses. The main difference between what I learned and the fact-checking I see here is that
- there is little to no discussion and interpretation of the results in the answers.
My question is therefore:
Is it encouraged to discuss and interpret facts and results in an answer? Should answers rather stick to only fact-checking?
Note that I am refering to discussion as is seen in scientific articles. For instance, a discussion, in a scientific paper, can contain accusations of data falsification (although this is exceptional). It can add context and broaden the answer's scope.
My question is wether or not it is appropriate to discuss/interpret/conclude after having done proper fact-checking using credible, verified sources.
Consider, for instance, this question and the first answer. Would it be appropriate for the answerer to state that the publication is misleading? Suppose the answerer found the source of the publication. Would it be appropriate for him to explain the possible motives behind the misleading publication? To put this publication in the context of other rethorics used by the republicans/democrats? To critique the inaccurate style of the publication? This discussion would come after properly exposing the facts, and should be based on the facts.