8

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?

  • From the little I've seen of Skeptics, no, certainly not a science site. – Raphael May 28 '15 at 18:55
  • 1
    Are you coming to a conclusion based on little evidence you have seen from this website? – George Chalhoub May 28 '15 at 18:56
  • 11
    I think he's skeptical of Skeptics' scientific nature. – Catija May 28 '15 at 19:03
0

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.

  • 2
    What about having one site in several categories? Will it break anything? – Shadow The Curly Braced Wizard May 28 '15 at 21:43
  • @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 May 28 '15 at 23:35
  • As (almost) always @Adam, that's fair enough. :) – Shadow The Curly Braced Wizard May 29 '15 at 5:36
10

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.

  • 1
    It was raised there already - which spawned this question. – HDE 226868 May 28 '15 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 May 28 '15 at 23:42
  • I agree; I was surprised to see this question on Meta, given that result. – HDE 226868 May 28 '15 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... – George Chalhoub May 28 '15 at 23:51
  • 2
    @georgechalhoub It is not. Communities drive categorization. – Adam Lear May 28 '15 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. – George Chalhoub May 28 '15 at 23:56
  • 2
    It is a little premature, I've [featured] the meta,skeptics question for further voting. – Sklivvz May 29 '15 at 0:01
  • 2
    There is an even older meta post about this from me, you declined the category change back then ;-) – Mad Scientist May 29 '15 at 6:29
  • @MadScientist: I never knew Oo. Even Adam Lear edited the post... – George Chalhoub May 29 '15 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.

  • 3
    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 May 28 '15 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.

  • 1
    Explain why Philosophy and History of Science and Mathematics quality to be added in the science section but Skeptics doesn't. – George Chalhoub May 28 '15 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 May 28 '15 at 19:20
  • @georgechalhoub - you should ask another question on Philosophy's place. – Deer Hunter May 28 '15 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 May 28 '15 at 19:51
  • 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 May 28 '15 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 May 28 '15 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 May 28 '15 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 May 28 '15 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 May 28 '15 at 23:40
  • 1
    @MadScientist: We have already a question on skeptics.se meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3228/… – George Chalhoub May 29 '15 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 May 29 '15 at 0:57
  • @yes Sounds like an oversight. Is there a bug report/feature request? – Adam Lear May 29 '15 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 May 29 '15 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 May 29 '15 at 2:38
  • 1
    @DeerHunter true, however you could have totally avoided insulting its community by calling it "embarassing". – Sklivvz May 30 '15 at 7:52

You must log in to answer this question.

protected by Community Oct 25 '18 at 6:49

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

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