1

"Scientific skepticism" doesn't sound like an adequate explanation to me. Is it like a Q&A factcheck regardless of the topic?

3
3

We have a fair amount of material about what this site is about.

I would point to the tour which is mostly focused on giving an overview of the general StackExchange philosophy and features. In particular, we are about getting answers to practical, detailed questions, we aren't about opinions and discussions. We reward appropriate behaviour with reputation points that unlock features that require trust.

The Help Center reinforces that.

Note that the Tour and the Help Center are largely in common with other StackExchange sites.

The FAQ Questions on this Meta site are more site-specific.

In particular: the Welcome to New Users is intended to give a good overview - and point out where the common pitfalls lie. If that isn't clear, feedback is certainly welcome.


But, here's my elevator pitch:

Skeptics.SE is a Q&A site for asking whether real world claims are true.

So we aren't buried in idle speculations, we require questioners to show that a claim is notable (i.e. widely believed, or at least widely heard) and the claims must be specific enough to be answered.

We require answerers to provide references to support every significant claim they make; we are simply uninterested in their personal opinions, educated guesses, back-of-the-envelope calculations, logical deductions made on undocumented assumptions, nor unverifiable anecdotes. We are looking for references to published information from experts, ideally peer reviewed and empirically based.

Despite our name, we are not for discussing the philosophy of skepticism or the skeptics community. We are here to apply scientific skepticism to real world claims.

2
  • But each claim relates to biology, politics, economics, etc., that is it could be posted on other discipline-specific SE resources. I don't know why this site even exists Apr 2 '20 at 10:16
  • 1) Stack Exchange Inc doesn't ever pledge that every disciple in the sciences and humanities will have its own SE, so there are plenty of questions that don't have an alternative. 2) We often address questions that are outside the remit of the associated disciplines: e.g. None of Math.SE, Mathoverflow.com nor MedicalSciences.SE would touch what McDonald's customers thought was bigger: 1/3 or 1/4.
    – Oddthinking Mod
    Apr 2 '20 at 12:00
2

Most regulars here won't quickly call it "fact check", but notable claims sounds like the same thing to me. Questions about Skepticism as a discipline would quickly be closed. This includes discussion of history's great thinkers, philosophies, and empiricism et al. Answers that depend only on logic or even tangentially related science to make inference are often deleted. If you're looking for that kind of thing, many of your questions/answers will probably work at Philosophy SE.

You must log in to answer this question.

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