Return to Answer

My view is that we do need to move in this direction, but not quite as far as Skeptics has gone. For example I think the four top answers on the Eye of the Needle question all show their work in different, and equally acceptable ways, whereas the fifth clearly does not stem from and work up from the text. It looks at other texts but only passingly and superficially at the text that raised in question.

My view is that we do need to move in this direction, but not quite as far as Skeptics has gone. For example I think the four top answers on the Eye of the Needle question all show their work in different, and equally acceptable ways, whereas the fifth clearly does not stem from and work up from the text. It looks at other texts but only passingly and superficially at the text that raised in question.

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.

The biggest surprise to new users is our insistence on references in the answers. Many forums will appear to simply accept at face-value the word of a random internet denizen. Here, we expect to be able to independently check what you are saying — that is a key aspect of being a skeptic — as we want to chase down the evidence, rather than relying on authority or personal expertise. You should expect that people will actually follow up and check your references say what you claim they say.

and finally, a salient word of caution from one of the comments:

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.

The biggest surprise to new users is our insistence on references in the answers. Many forums will appear to simply accept at face-value the word of a random internet denizen. Here, we expect to be able to independently check what you are saying — that is a key aspect of being a skeptic — as we want to chase down the evidence, rather than relying on authority or personal expertise. You should expect that people will actually follow up and check your references say what you claim they say.

and finally, a salient word of caution from one of the comments:

My view is that we do need to move in this direction, but not quite as far as Skeptics has gone. For example I think the four top answers on the Eye of the Needle question all show their work in different, and equally acceptable ways, whereas the fifth clearly does not stem from and work up from the text. It looks at other texts but only passingly and superficially at the text that raised in question.

I'd also like to see one of the Skeptics proposals implemented here in a different form, namely "That logical argument - i.e. drawing conclusions using logic based on agreed premises - be accepted without requiring references". In particular, whereas I think we should not assume anything about the communities knowledge of extra-Biblical jargon or people (eg Martin Luther or Rashi), the Biblical texts themselves and logic that clearly stems from them should not always need to be spelled out. If there is an answer on one of the 12 books used by the Eastern Orthodox church that I have never read, the onus should be on me to read and familiarise myself with those texts or ignore the question. Similarly answers which draw from the Christian New Testament texts should not be required to assume readers need a link to the Paul the Apostle page on Wikipedia if they mention Paul, neither should they need to justify claims such as 'Jesus is God' which are explicitly and clearly supported in texts that are on-topic here. Likewise everything in-between.

My view is that we do need to move in this direction, but not quite as far as Skeptics has gone. For example I think the four top answers on the Eye of the Needle question all show their work in different, and equally acceptable ways, whereas the fifth clearly does not stem from and work up from the text. It looks at other texts but only passingly and superficially at the text that raised in question.

I'd also like to see one of the Skeptics proposals implemented here in a different form, namely "That logical argument - i.e. drawing conclusions using logic based on agreed premises - be accepted without requiring references". In particular, whereas I think we should not assume anything about the communities knowledge of extra-Biblical jargon or people (eg Martin Luther or Rashi), the Biblical texts themselves and logic that clearly stems from them should not always need to be spelled out. If there is an answer on one of the 12 books used by the Eastern Orthodox church that I have never read, the onus should be on me to read and familiarise myself with those texts or ignore the question. Similarly answers which draw from the Christian New Testament texts should not be required to assume readers need a link to the Paul the Apostle page on Wikipedia if they mention Paul, neither should they need to justify claims such as 'Jesus is God' which are explicitly and clearly supported in texts that are on-topic here. Likewise everything in-between.