Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Meta

Comments on Which sciences are welcome?

Parent

Which sciences are welcome?

+5
−0

A now-deleted question involved archaeology, linguistics, and history. There were some downvotes and critical comments, and the author deleted the question. I don't know whether the downvotes were because of the scope or for other reasons, but it sent me to the FAQ to see what we say about our scope, and it talks about science broadly.

I'm wondering if we have some people who think this community is about hard sciences and others who think it's about any sciences. I've been assuming the latter, but I don't see where we actually say so, and perhaps I've misunderstood.

Which sciences are in scope?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+3
−2

That question was off topic for two reasons:

  1. There was no speculation. Paraphrasing loosely, this site is about "what if" questions with a foundation in science.
  2. It was about history. This is not what was envisioned by scientific speculation. Historical speculation is a very different field that we don't want to get into because there is usually no way to judge the results of making minor changes to history. There are so many possible outcomes, that you can usually construct a scenario for any result you like.

The problem with speculation about history is that you can't use the laws of physics and other sciences to judge what would happen. You are dealing with how human beings might have reacted to hypothetical situations. This only leads to pointless arguments about how plausible one reaction is versus another, which can never be settled. We don't want to go down this rathole.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (1 comment)
General comments
Monica Cellio‭ wrote over 3 years ago

I agree that speculation about history doesn't fit in with scientific speculation. (Maybe there are speculative history-of-science questions that would fit; haven't thought about it.) It looked like there might have been other objections (couldn't quite tell), but all of it made me realize I had a more fundamental question about scope, which led me here. This isn't about that question specifically but about issues raised from it.