Post History

80%

+6 −0

Meta Where does this differ from a regular Science Q&A?

As I see it, the operative word in answering the question you're asking here is speculation. Now, of course, it's almost impossible to capture every nuance in a site name, which is why we have a pa...

posted 2y ago by Canina‭ · edited 2y ago by Canina‭

Answer

#3: Post edited by

Canina‭ · 2021-08-05T09:48:27Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

As I see it, the operative word in answering the question you're asking here is *speculation*. Now, of course, it's almost impossible to capture every nuance in a site name, which is why we have a paragraph on [what the site is all about](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/help/faq) in the help section. (It can probably be expanded and improved upon, but we had to start somewhere.)
What sets *Scientific Speculation* Codidact apart from, say, *Physics* Codidact, is that SciSpec is for questions about *what could be*, whereas more "mainline" science sites are primarily about *what is*.
As an example, on Physics, any question regarding faster-than-light travel seems likely to be summarily downvoted and closed as not being about known science. (Alcubierre drive and negative-mass matter notwithstanding.) However, on SciSpec, it's perfectly permissible to, for example, postulate FTL travel with given characteristics *and then ask about consequences of that*.
Similarly, on a hypothetical (not yet existing) biology-focused Codidact site, questions about biological shapeshifter beings would likely be shunned; but on SciSpec, asking about creatures such as werewolves is perfectly permissible.
If you're into space constructs, then asking about life on the surface of a Dyson sphere would probably be off topic on a more strictly-science site, but would, again, be perfectly permissible on SciSpec because, while we don't necessarily have *the* answer, we can take what we know and come up with *an* answer.
Conversely, if a question is strictly about the real world with no speculative element involved, it's likely to be *off topic* on SciSpec. SciSpec doesn't aim to be the proverbial kitchen sink for every possible question that may or may not have a good home elsewhere; SciSpec focuses on taking what we do know, and speculatively extrapolating on it to come up with plausible, realistic answers to questions that known science can't provide any direct answers to.
To me, what's needed for a question to have a reasonable chance of being a good fit on SciSpec is basically three things:
* It must be somehow based in science. It need not, however, be restricted to *currently known* science; that's what *extrapolation from science* in the site's scope is all about.
* The effect it seeks or discusses must somehow adhere to rules; ideally rules that are in some manner quantifiable. That's what the *realistic* in the site's scope aims to capture; after all, if *any* answer is equally valid ("it's magic!"), it's very difficult to determine what makes an answer *good* or *bad*.
* It must not be strictly about our real world as we currently understand it. It may be based in our real world, and it may draw heavily on our real world, but there needs to be something somehow *speculative* or imaginary about it; whether physical phenomena, advanced technology, some unknown law of physics, or what have you.
Scientific Speculation Codidact was largely born out of, dare I say some degree of frustration with, other worldbuilding communities where answers commonly ranged across the spectrum all the way from "your premise is flawed, therefore I won't answer your question" (or "therefore I choose to randomly ignore parts of your premise") to "just call it magic and do whatever you want". SciSpec aims to hit, and limit itself to, a middle ground in between those two extremes.

As I see it, the operative word in answering the question you're asking here is *speculation*. Now, of course, it's almost impossible to capture every nuance in a site name, which is why we have a paragraph on [what the site is all about](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/help/faq) in the help section. (It can probably be expanded and improved upon, but we had to start somewhere.)
What sets *Scientific Speculation* Codidact apart from, say, *Physics* Codidact, is that **SciSpec is for questions about *what could be*,** whereas more "mainline" science sites are primarily about *what is*.
As an example, on Physics, any question regarding faster-than-light travel seems likely to be summarily downvoted and closed as not being about known science. (Alcubierre drive and negative-mass matter notwithstanding.) However, on SciSpec, it's perfectly permissible to postulate FTL travel with given characteristics *and then ask about consequences of that*.
Similarly, on a hypothetical (not yet existing) biology-focused Codidact site, questions about biological shapeshifter beings would likely be shunned; but on SciSpec, asking about creatures such as werewolves is perfectly permissible.
If you're into space constructs, then asking about life on the surface of a Dyson sphere or artificially generated gravitational fields would probably be off topic on a more strictly-science site, but would, again, be perfectly permissible on SciSpec.
In all of those cases, while we don't necessarily have *the* answer, we can take what we know plus any assumptions stated in the question and come up with *an* answer and make an argument for why it *could* be that way given certain assumptions.
Conversely, if a question is strictly about the real world, with no speculative element involved, then it's *likely to be off topic* on SciSpec. SciSpec doesn't aim to be the proverbial kitchen sink for every possible question that may or may not have a good home elsewhere; SciSpec focuses on taking what we do know, and speculatively extrapolating on it to come up with plausible, realistic answers to questions that known science can't provide any direct answers to.
To me, what's needed for a question to have a reasonable chance of being a good fit on SciSpec is basically three things:
* **It must be somehow based in science.** It need not, however, be restricted to *currently known* science; that's what *extrapolation from science* in the site's scope is all about.
* **The effect it seeks or discusses must somehow adhere to rules;** ideally rules that are in some manner quantifiable. That's what the *realistic* in the site's scope aims to capture; after all, if *any* answer is equally valid, it's very difficult to determine what makes an answer *good* or *bad* as it pertains to the question, let alone *realistic*.
* **It must not be strictly about our real world as we currently understand it.** It may be based in our real world, and it may draw heavily upon our real world, but there needs to be something somehow *speculative* or imaginary about it; whether physical phenomena, advanced technology, some unknown law of physics, or what have you.
Scientific Speculation Codidact was largely born out of, dare I say some degree of frustration with, other worldbuilding communities where answers commonly ranged across the spectrum all the way from "your premise is flawed, therefore I won't answer your question" (or "therefore I choose to randomly ignore parts of your premise") to "just call it magic and do whatever you want". SciSpec aims to hit, and limit itself to, a middle ground in between those two extremes.

#2: Post edited by

Canina‭ · 2021-08-01T15:17:28Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

As I see it, the operative word in answering the question you're asking here is *speculation*. Now, of course, it's almost impossible to capture every nuance in a site name, which is why we have a paragraph on [what the site is all about](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/help/faq) in the help section. (It can probably be expanded and improved upon, but we had to start somewhere.)
What sets *Scientific Speculation* Codidact apart from, say, *Physics* Codidact, is that SciSpec is for questions about *what could be*, whereas more "mainline" science sites are primarily about *what is*.
As an example, on Physics, any question regarding faster-than-light travel seems likely to be summarily downvoted and closed as not being about known science. (Alcubierre drive and negative-mass matter notwithstanding.) However, on SciSpec, it's perfectly permissible to, for example, postulate FTL travel with given characteristics *and then ask about consequences of that*.
Similarly, on a hypothetical (not yet existing) biology-focused Codidact site, questions about biological shapeshifter beings would likely be shunned; but on SciSpec, asking about creatures such as werewolves is perfectly permissible.
If you're into space constructs, then asking about life on the surface of a Dyson sphere would probably be off topic on a more strictly-science site, but would, again, be perfectly permissible on SciSpec because, while we don't necessarily have *the* answer, we can take what we know and come up with *an* answer.
Conversely, if a question is strictly about the real world with no speculative element involved, it's likely to be *off topic* on SciSpec. SciSpec doesn't aim to be the proverbial kitchen sink for every possible question that may or may not have a good home elsewhere; SciSpec focuses on taking what we do know, and speculatively extrapolating on it to come up with plausible, realistic answers to questions that known science can't provide any direct answers to.
~~To me, what's needed for a question to have a reasonable chance of being a good fit on SciSpec is basically two things:~~
* It must be somehow based in science. It need not, however, be restricted to *currently known* science; that's what *extrapolation from science* in the site's scope is all about.
* The effect it seeks or discusses must somehow adhere to rules; ideally rules that are in some manner quantifiable. That's what the *realistic* in the site's scope aims to capture; after all, if *any* answer is equally valid ("it's magic!"), it's very difficult to determine what makes an answer *good* or *bad*.
Scientific Speculation Codidact was largely born out of, dare I say some degree of frustration with, other worldbuilding communities where answers commonly ranged across the spectrum all the way from "your premise is flawed, therefore I won't answer your question" (or "therefore I choose to randomly ignore parts of your premise") to "just call it magic and do whatever you want". SciSpec aims to hit, and limit itself to, a middle ground in between those two extremes.

As I see it, the operative word in answering the question you're asking here is *speculation*. Now, of course, it's almost impossible to capture every nuance in a site name, which is why we have a paragraph on [what the site is all about](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/help/faq) in the help section. (It can probably be expanded and improved upon, but we had to start somewhere.)
What sets *Scientific Speculation* Codidact apart from, say, *Physics* Codidact, is that SciSpec is for questions about *what could be*, whereas more "mainline" science sites are primarily about *what is*.
As an example, on Physics, any question regarding faster-than-light travel seems likely to be summarily downvoted and closed as not being about known science. (Alcubierre drive and negative-mass matter notwithstanding.) However, on SciSpec, it's perfectly permissible to, for example, postulate FTL travel with given characteristics *and then ask about consequences of that*.
Similarly, on a hypothetical (not yet existing) biology-focused Codidact site, questions about biological shapeshifter beings would likely be shunned; but on SciSpec, asking about creatures such as werewolves is perfectly permissible.
If you're into space constructs, then asking about life on the surface of a Dyson sphere would probably be off topic on a more strictly-science site, but would, again, be perfectly permissible on SciSpec because, while we don't necessarily have *the* answer, we can take what we know and come up with *an* answer.
Conversely, if a question is strictly about the real world with no speculative element involved, it's likely to be *off topic* on SciSpec. SciSpec doesn't aim to be the proverbial kitchen sink for every possible question that may or may not have a good home elsewhere; SciSpec focuses on taking what we do know, and speculatively extrapolating on it to come up with plausible, realistic answers to questions that known science can't provide any direct answers to.
To me, what's needed for a question to have a reasonable chance of being a good fit on SciSpec is basically three things:
* It must be somehow based in science. It need not, however, be restricted to *currently known* science; that's what *extrapolation from science* in the site's scope is all about.
* The effect it seeks or discusses must somehow adhere to rules; ideally rules that are in some manner quantifiable. That's what the *realistic* in the site's scope aims to capture; after all, if *any* answer is equally valid ("it's magic!"), it's very difficult to determine what makes an answer *good* or *bad*.
* It must not be strictly about our real world as we currently understand it. It may be based in our real world, and it may draw heavily on our real world, but there needs to be something somehow *speculative* or imaginary about it; whether physical phenomena, advanced technology, some unknown law of physics, or what have you.
Scientific Speculation Codidact was largely born out of, dare I say some degree of frustration with, other worldbuilding communities where answers commonly ranged across the spectrum all the way from "your premise is flawed, therefore I won't answer your question" (or "therefore I choose to randomly ignore parts of your premise") to "just call it magic and do whatever you want". SciSpec aims to hit, and limit itself to, a middle ground in between those two extremes.

#1: Initial revision by

Canina‭ · 2021-08-01T09:45:09Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

As I see it, the operative word in answering the question you're asking here is *speculation*. Now, of course, it's almost impossible to capture every nuance in a site name, which is why we have a paragraph on [what the site is all about](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/help/faq) in the help section. (It can probably be expanded and improved upon, but we had to start somewhere.)

What sets *Scientific Speculation* Codidact apart from, say, *Physics* Codidact, is that SciSpec is for questions about *what could be*, whereas more "mainline" science sites are primarily about *what is*.

As an example, on Physics, any question regarding faster-than-light travel seems likely to be summarily downvoted and closed as not being about known science. (Alcubierre drive and negative-mass matter notwithstanding.) However, on SciSpec, it's perfectly permissible to, for example, postulate FTL travel with given characteristics *and then ask about consequences of that*.

Similarly, on a hypothetical (not yet existing) biology-focused Codidact site, questions about biological shapeshifter beings would likely be shunned; but on SciSpec, asking about creatures such as werewolves is perfectly permissible.

If you're into space constructs, then asking about life on the surface of a Dyson sphere would probably be off topic on a more strictly-science site, but would, again, be perfectly permissible on SciSpec because, while we don't necessarily have *the* answer, we can take what we know and come up with *an* answer.

Conversely, if a question is strictly about the real world with no speculative element involved, it's likely to be *off topic* on SciSpec. SciSpec doesn't aim to be the proverbial kitchen sink for every possible question that may or may not have a good home elsewhere; SciSpec focuses on taking what we do know, and speculatively extrapolating on it to come up with plausible, realistic answers to questions that known science can't provide any direct answers to.

To me, what's needed for a question to have a reasonable chance of being a good fit on SciSpec is basically two things:

 * It must be somehow based in science. It need not, however, be restricted to *currently known* science; that's what *extrapolation from science* in the site's scope is all about.
 * The effect it seeks or discusses must somehow adhere to rules; ideally rules that are in some manner quantifiable. That's what the *realistic* in the site's scope aims to capture; after all, if *any* answer is equally valid ("it's magic!"), it's very difficult to determine what makes an answer *good* or *bad*.

Scientific Speculation Codidact was largely born out of, dare I say some degree of frustration with, other worldbuilding communities where answers commonly ranged across the spectrum all the way from "your premise is flawed, therefore I won't answer your question" (or "therefore I choose to randomly ignore parts of your premise") to "just call it magic and do whatever you want". SciSpec aims to hit, and limit itself to, a middle ground in between those two extremes.

Communities

Post History