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 Shouldnt this question be moved instead of closed ?

Parent

Shouldnt this question be moved instead of closed ?

+1
−3

I'm a little disappointed that How can Single Vision lenses slow myopia for adults too? was deemed off topic. Can anyone explain to me why?

It is indeed science speculation, it should be on rigorous sciences. The author linked multiple sources and made a good question, pointing out what makes him ask the question, with tons of information. It's well written. Why close instead of move?

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
+1
−0

On topic for the community name only

The question could be assumed to be on topic for the name of this community: "Scientific Speculation". It is indeed a speculative question about science that hasn't been discovered yet, extrapolated from science that is still in the process of being tested.

Likely off topic for the community purpose

Like many websites, the name does not fully describe the purpose. The top of the Q&A category states the purpose for this category:

General Q&A about worldbuilding and other speculative developments that can be extrapolated from science.

This community is for people who are building a fictional world, and want to establish what would be realistic. For example, they may be making board games, computer games, screenplays, or novels.

The separate category "Rigorous Science" is still serving the same purpose, just with a stricter requirement for well founded science.

Grey areas

Different people may ask the same question for different purposes, so there will always be grey areas where it is not clear if a question is on topic.

In this particular example, it is possible someone might want to ask about preventing sight deterioration in adults as part of their work on a novel set in the near future, but that does not appear to be the case here.

For any community it is difficult to define exactly what is on topic, so the scope is refined over time by discussion on Meta. Now that you've identified this example, anyone is free to make the case for it being on topic, or for more generally accepting scientific questions that are not related to building fictional worlds.

By discussion and voting the community will decide what should count as on topic. By the current guidance, the example appears to be off topic to me personally.

Existing documentation

You can find guidance in the Scientific Speculation help section, which in particular includes the Frequently Asked Questions.

New communities

If you'd like Codidact to have a new community where scientific questions in general are on topic, or a community for a specific branch of science, or anything else, you can propose it at Codidact Proposals.

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

2 comment threads

Not just about world building (2 comments)
Possible name change (4 comments)
Not just about world building
Olin Lathrop‭ wrote about 1 year ago

This site isn't just about world building. If it were, it would be named that. This might be a good place for people trying to build somewhat plausible fictional worlds, but the site is certainly not limited to that, nor does it or should it have a particular focus on that. As the help you linked to mentioned, it's also about making at least partially plausible extrapolations from existing science. Much of worldbuilding fits into that, which is fine. That doesn't make the site about worldbuilding, though.

trichoplax‭ wrote about 1 year ago

Thank you for clarifying.

General Q&A about worldbuilding and other speculative developments that can be extrapolated from science.

Although the community is not restricted solely to world building, the Q&A category description suggests it is a big part of determining what is on topic. If that is not the impression the community wishes to give, the category description and help pages can be edited by those who have access, or suggestions can be made on Meta.

If any questions about extrapolating current science are on topic, the reference to world building could be omitted.