9

As of 25 May 2015, Skeptics Stack Exchange not is inserted in the Science section by Stack Exchange:

enter image description here

While not being exactly a science site, this website exists to apply scientific skepticism on scientific topics, examples:

And so on. Most of our questions involve topics including: biology - physics - chemistry - zoology and so on...

On this website, we strictly practice:

questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge"

History of Science and Mathematics is listed in the Science section, it is not a science itself, but it is highly related to science. Same thing goes with Skeptics Stack Exchange.

Will you please move Skeptics Stack Exchange to the science section? If you reject this feature request, would you explain why Philosophy and History of Science and Mathematics quality to be added in the science section but Skeptics doesn't?

Improve this question
3
  • From the little I've seen of Skeptics, no, certainly not a science site.
    – Raphael
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 18:55
  • 1
    Are you coming to a conclusion based on little evidence you have seen from this website?
    – Online User
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 18:56
  • 11
    I think he's skeptical of Skeptics' scientific nature.
    – Catija
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 19:03

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
1

I think it could fit in many categories at an abstract level.

Science, because it overlaps with:

  • Physics
  • Biology
  • Chemistry
  • Economics
  • Philosophy
  • Earth Science
  • Astronomy

Life and arts, because it overlaps with:

  • Health
  • Life Hacks
  • Personal Productivity

Culture, because it overlaps with:

  • Politics
  • History

Of all the categories where it could fit, Culture is unfortunately the least overlapping. I don't really think it makes a shred of a difference in terms of traffic, but as a matter of self-identification, yes - I think we fit better under "Science", although we don't really strictly fit anywhere.

Improve this answer
3
  • 2
    What about having one site in several categories? Will it break anything?
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 21:43
  • 1
    @ShadowWizard They're inferred from Area 51. Not necessarily break per se, but I'd really rather not work around a simple system just for the sake of a "perfect" categorization.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 23:35
  • As (almost) always @Adam, that's fair enough. :)
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 5:36
11

I ... personally don't think the category matters that much. So, if y'all want to be in Science really badly, we can make that happen. Technically speaking, the change is trivial.

But, this is the sort of discussion that should be happening on the site itself first. Pitch this idea to the Skeptics community (and/or include a link to an existing recent and relevant discussion here) and we'll go from there.

Improve this answer
9
  • 1
    It was raised there already - which spawned this question.
    – HDE 226868
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 23:41
  • 4
    @HDE226868 Awesome, thanks for the link. It doesn't look like the community was on board with the plan, although perhaps it's a bit early to tell for sure. I'd say it's disingenuous to come make a feature request on MSE to just have the change happen when the community-specific discussion wasn't overwhelmingly (or at all) in favor of it.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 23:42
  • I agree; I was surprised to see this question on Meta, given that result.
    – HDE 226868
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 23:43
  • Yeah, it could be disingenuous. But, just like design, I think categorization is set by employees and not contributing members. That's why I brought this to meta.se...
    – Online User
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 23:51
  • 2
    @georgechalhoub It is not. Communities drive categorization.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 23:55
  • Alright; I will edit the answer on skeptics.se updating it with this post. If it receives enough upvotes I'll let you know.
    – Online User
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 23:56
  • 2
    It is a little premature, I've [featured] the meta,skeptics question for further voting.
    – Sklivvz Mod
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 0:01
  • 2
    There is an even older meta post about this from me, you declined the category change back then ;-)
    – Mad Scientist
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 6:29
  • @MadScientist: I never knew Oo. Even Adam Lear edited the post...
    – Online User
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 16:09
7

Let's consider what Skeptics.SE is about. From their own help page:

Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging unreferenced notable claims, pseudoscience and biased results.

Skeptics is about applying skepticism — it is for researching the evidence behind claims you encounter. It is not for speculation, philosophical discussions or investigating original claims.

If your question is not about a particular claim, or if it is about research-level science, the following sites may be better suited for your needs:

•Biology - Stack Exchange

•Philosophy - Stack Exchange

•Physical Fitness - Stack Exchange

•Physics - Stack Exchange

"Physical Fitness" Is a bit unusual (and probably has to do with questions concerning what the body can and cannot do), but you will note that the rest of the suggested sites are all part of the "Science" section on SE. And, you will also find, those SE sites do not accept the types of questions you would ask on Skeptics.SE.

Skeptics.SE is about verifying those claims made outside of the scope of Scientific Skepticism, or limited Scientific Skepticism, but it is not about science specifically - plenty of the questions on the site deal with political claims, historic claims, and general conspiracy theories. While proving or disproving these claims can be done with an approach of scientific skepticism, this does not make a discussion about such claims a science in and of itself.

Skeptics.SE currently resides in the Culture/Recreation section of SE, and while that's not a perfect fit either, the scope of questions in Skeptics.SE is too broad to justify placing it in the Science section of SE.

Improve this answer
1
  • 4
    To be honest, most of our scientific questions also fit on the science sites. They would be answered differently (we are reference based, the other sites allow theoretical answers).
    – Sklivvz Mod
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 21:38
6

This post may be downvoted to smithereens, but I'd like to state it for the record:

There is no such scientific discipline as Skepticism.

Skeptics.SE discusses all kinds of fringe content. It would be embarrassing to have it listed as 'science'. There are no unifying definition for the sorts of questions that pop up at Skeptics (tinfoil hattery and urban legendarium aside), no stable body of methods of investigation, and no real-life applications.

Improve this answer
15
  • 1
    Explain why Philosophy and History of Science and Mathematics quality to be added in the science section but Skeptics doesn't.
    – Online User
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 19:17
  • 4
    @georgechalhoub - that's irrelevant. I do not discuss SE's decision to classify Philosophy and HSM, I can see clearly that Skeptics doesn't belong to the Science section.
    – Deer Hunter
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 19:20
  • @georgechalhoub - you should ask another question on Philosophy's place.
    – Deer Hunter
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 19:21
  • 1
    I wouldn't call it 'embarrassing', I would call it inaccurate, and inaccuracy is more important than embarrassment in deciding on categorization.
    – Zibbobz
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 19:51
  • 1
    By some definitions of the word (e.g., definitions 4 and 5 here), science is not about the content or the results – it’s about about the approach. You can investigate all sorts of stuff scientifically, e.g., physics, religions, politics, humans, history, the history of science, and “fringe content”, if you so wish, which is (amongst others) what Skeptics is about.
    – Wrzlprmft
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 20:07
  • @Wrzlprmft Note that 4 and 5 in your reference are "Uncountable", meaning it is an essence of science, not an object of science. And while that doesn't invalidate the importance of skepticism, it does bring into question whether or not it should be categorized as a science itself.
    – Zibbobz
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 20:25
  • 3
    @Zibbobz: Sure, but placing something in the science section does not necesarrily mean that it’s classified as a science, only that it’s classified as relating to science. Not everything in the business section is a business eather and not everything in the professional section is a professional. In particular, the section is called science, not sciences.
    – Wrzlprmft
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 20:29
  • 2
    You don't even have an account on Skeptics, our site is not about tinfoil hat conspiracies. Of course we answer that kind of question, but we answer them because a significant number of people believe in all kinds of crazy stuff. We're mostly debunking all the crazy theories, and our answers are generally based on science, or on verifiable facts.
    – Mad Scientist
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 21:39
  • For the record, we (SE) don't spend any time thinking about categorizations. Those come from the people who propose the sites on Area 51 - the categories we use are the ones the sites were originally proposed under. (I think we once moved a proposal to a different category? It's rare. Point being, Area 51 rules all. Sites come in peace.)
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 23:40
  • 1
    @MadScientist: We have already a question on skeptics.se meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3228/…
    – Online User
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 0:10
  • 1
    @AdamLear I wish you (SE) spent a tiny bit of time thinking of them in the context of the site footer, which at present omits all sites unlucky to have the category Business or Professional.
    – user259867
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 0:57
  • @yes Sounds like an oversight. Is there a bug report/feature request?
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 1:14
  • 1
    @AdamLear This one: Ask Patents and The Workplace are missing from the footer -- the title is more narrow, but the post itself is about those two categories.
    – user259867
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 1:42
  • 3
    @MadScientist - not having an account does not mean I cannot read it from time to time and see for myself what it is about.
    – Deer Hunter
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 2:38
  • 1
    @DeerHunter true, however you could have totally avoided insulting its community by calling it "embarassing".
    – Sklivvz Mod
    Commented May 30, 2015 at 7:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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