My question is being down voted but no one gives a reason why. I wonder if those down-voting even read the question or are reading only the title.

I am asking for the reasoning behind a specific claim that I am skeptical about. I point out in my question that I am not asking for the truthfulness of the Mayan judgment day claim but only the reasoning behind it being today instead of the more common claim of a year from now.

Unfortunately, the question is generating more discussion than answers but I think one of the comments could have made a satisfactory answer with a little more effort.

So, help me out. What is wrong with this question?

Edit: Here is a question that seems more subjective and yet has many up-votes.

  • 1
    I'm getting the impression that it can very well be a matter of luck. The site is supposed to be objective, but there's nothing preventing one from (up|down)voting on a subjective basis ( because it can't be ). The sensible thing to do is give a reason, but that's more akin to wishful thinking; I guess we just have to deal with the fact that this kind of stuff happens. – Mihai Rotaru May 21 '11 at 21:22
  • 1
    I think it's not a very interesting question. As of today, it is answered by the fact the world hasn't ended... :-) – Sklivvz May 22 '11 at 16:50
  • 1
    @Sklivvz My question is about why one would believe that it was yesterday. As I said, "Questions of the whole judgment day part aside, why would it be now instead of in 2012?". That is not at all answered by the fact that the judgment day part is false. I'm asking for reasoning regarding the different dates involved? So in response to this meta question, are you saying that not being personally interested in a question is a good criteria for down voting. – logicbird May 22 '11 at 19:01
  • @log Ah-a, but questions are supposed to be about a claim, so: "is the world ending today?" is a valid, but uninteresting question. "why do they think the world is ending today?" is interesting, but off-topic here. – Sklivvz May 22 '11 at 20:37
  • @Sklivvz From faq, "If you have a question about the accuracy of public claims made in the media or elsewhere, if you're interested in the evidence behind what you hear or read, then you are in the right place". I don't know, I heard a public claim and I'm interested in the evidence behind what I hear. I don't see the problem, however, it is clear that others are in agreement with you. – logicbird May 22 '11 at 21:44
  • 1
    @log: and in fact, in that sense the question is on topic, but, given the world hasn't ended, the extremely obvious positive evidence disproving the claim makes the question not very interesting. – Sklivvz May 23 '11 at 9:42
  • Even though I answered the question, I didn't find it a particularly "interesting" question. Rather tiresome and outright silly considering that every single doomsday prediction ever in all of human history, and even pre-history has been false... – Larian LeQuella May 26 '11 at 1:35

Browse other questions tagged .