3

Again the "no theoretical answers" rule has deleted a — in my opinion — very valid answer. (See previous request to change from "theory" to "speculation"). Also I object to that the post was immediately deleted without any comment from moderators to improve the question.

I am fed up with that rule because it is hurting Skeptics SE, both in that it deletes valid and valuable answers, and because it creates the impression that Skeptics SE operates under the "It's just a theory" mindset.

The moderator also closed the question as "opinion based", when it is not.

The post was "Does the Bishop Experiment contradict that the Earth is a globe? [on hold]", and the actual question is this:

IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches over the first statute mile. Over two miles the fall will be 32 inches; by the end of the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart.

[Chart not quoted]

Correcting for the height of the observer of about 20 inches, when looking at the opposite beach over 23 miles away there should be a bulge of water obscuring objects up to 300 feet above the far beach. There isn't. Even accounting for refraction, the amount hidden should be around 260 feet - seeing down to the shoreline should be impossible

Is above statement correct?

This is a very clearly written statement, and the question is simple: is the statement correct?

I find it ludicrous that this gets put on hold as "Opinion based", and an answer that shows that it is possible by pictures of real world examples of it happening gets deleted as "theoretical".

I motion for two things:

  1. That the question and related answer gets reopened / undeleted

  2. That the moderators of Skeptics SE re-examine the no-theoretical answers rule, because leaving it as it is causes harm to Skeptics SE and frustration for its user.

As I have been told, the rule exists to lessen the workload on moderators to prevent them from ending up in answer- and comment-wars where people put up a model of the situation and then disagree with which model(s) is the accurate one. I can appreciate that moderators should not be burdened with having to spend much energy on such wars, and I agree that it would also hurt Skeptics SE to turn it into place where people post wildly differing answers and engage in verbal fights.

What I do not agree with is the assessment that changing the rule from "theoretical" to "speculative" would result in such a situation.

Please re-examine that rule.

  • I don't think we can have this discussion every single time there's a disagreement. Please limit this topic to one question. – Sklivvz Nov 22 '18 at 9:38
  • 2
    @Sklivvz Two things: 1) You did not adress that I am objecting to the closure of the post and the deletion of the answer. You just say there is disagreement and shuts down. 2) Regarding the rule: we must have the discussion because the problem remains and nothing is being done about it. And I am getting increasingly fed up by being stonewalled by the person that both wrote the rule and acts on it, acting as if everything is fine and nothing ever needs to be even discussed about it. – MichaelK Nov 22 '18 at 9:50
  • @Sklivvz Also you marked the wrong meta post as the supposed duplicate. – MichaelK Nov 22 '18 at 9:51

Browse other questions tagged .