A hard-science ultimatum

Question

Back when an issue with the science-based tag came up, Monica Cellio made a suggestion:

Re the addendum, would [hard-science] better convey what you're after?

The rationale behind the question that started that discussion was that almost all answers are expected to be based in science and logic.

Well, the tag was started, I asked a question to test it out. Serban Tanasa's answer earned a bounty I placed, but I didn't accept it, because it wasn't as in-depth as I wanted. I also posted an answer to demonstrate just how I thought answer using the tag should be.

I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, but I don't think that the answers have turned out to be quite as good as I had hoped. Looking at the tag wiki excerpt,

All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc.

To this day, I have yet to see more than a few answers - and this takes into account that some of my answers aren't up to snuff here - that actually fit these criteria.

In short, I see the hard-science tag going the way of science-based, which is not good. I tried to bring this up in Defining the boundaries of the "hard-science" tag, but the issue has not gone away. I see questions migrated away to other sites, like Physics and Engineering. That's good, but I think we should strive to have questions demanding tough answers on-topic and welcome here.

Perhaps I'm just getting a bit touchy about the issue because of the types of topics I'm used to writing about on Stack Exchange. But I think that this is a necessary issue. After this, I'm not going to push the point. I promise.

Can we please, please bring back hard-science to the way we envisioned it, and make sure that the original ideas - like what an asker should want in order to use the tag - are enforced? If things keep sliding, the concept, I think, will be dead.

Answer 1

I think, to prevent hard-science going the way of science-based, we're going to have to be strict about things. Really, quite harshly strict about it - like this:

• If a question is not a hard-science question but tagged as one, a tag edit is needed. Any and all attempts to re-add the tag should be rolled back.
• If an answer to a hard-science question doesn't cite sources, have evidence and proofs, then (this is the harsh bit) it is not an answer and thus it should be deleted.
• (perhaps this might go a little too far) If an answer is scientifically wrong, it is also not an answer and should be deleted. Hard science expects hard, verifiable, correct science.

I note, as per HDE's comment, that bullet point 3 is outlawed on many of the hard-science SE sites - so I'm open to that bullet being rejected here. Just a suggestion.

Now, in my personal opinion, hard-science does serve a useful purpose here, for those questions that really want completely scientific answers to problems that might be off-topic on a hard science SE site. If it goes the way of science-based, it will no longer serve a purpose. Thus, I think we should apply the measures detailed above, and apply them consistently and strictly.

I expect some people to disagree. That's fine, but this is an issue we need to solve, so if you wouldn't be OK with helping apply these policies, let's debate them. Post a counter-answer here or a comment, and let's actually sort this one out.

Answer 2

I agree with ArtOfCode, but wanted to add that many of us don't feel qualified to answer hard-science. I suspect the same would be mostly true with regards towards knowing is something has enough hard science in.

Downvoting answers and adding comments is still the initial first step for answers that are not good enough. The deletion reason for answer would be "low quality". Scientifically wrong answers that still (inaccurately) use "facts" and equations (however misapplied) are in fact answering the question, and as per norm should just be downvoted.

I have a feeling that those of you who constantly use the tag are going to have to spend a lot of time adding comments, VTC, VTD, editing and quoting the tag wiki to get this into the heads of most of our members, since while meta is where decisions are made, it is not always read.

Answer 3

I am bumping this as it now seems the original idea of this tag has been perverted through a misconception of its purpose.

As I understand it, use of this tag is purely to require answers to support all critical points with scientifically backed sources or equations.

I whole heartedly support this notion. Some topics are only worth answering under full scientific scruitany. Such questions should allow the possibility that they are impossible, however all answers must be supported.

What I do not believe this tag ever supported, was that hard-science questions be only hard science topics.

Lets analyze this under the lens of an obviously contested topic: Anatomically correct succubus: the diet.

This question asks if a humanoid organism could sustain itself through intercourse with a human, inkeeping with the mythology of the succubus.

Obviously a succubus is a mythological creature and therefore does not exist in science. But that is not the question.

The question is if it is plausible that a humanoid organism could sustain itself this way? This could easily be explored under a strong scientific lens.

For instance:

One answer could reason that succubus is a hummanoid so it will have similar caloric needs to a human [insert links and equations]. It could then point out that ejaculate only contains 22 calories [insert supporting link] it could then mathematically demonstrate that it would be impossible for an organism to survive on such limited nutrition.

Such answer satisfies the criteria of hard-science and yet can still be wrong. Because the question assumed the only obtainable substance during sex was ejaculate instead of considering other things like blood. Its still a valuable answer because it outlines variables in the system to explain.

You might be thinking why I went with that example:

My point was hard-science does not dictate the correctness of the answer or even the question, that is the purpose of comments and voting. Hard-science does not dictate the subject matter of the question or answer. What makes hard-science valuable as a tag is that it requires all presented variables to be scientifically supported so that they can be mathematically evaluated.

Going back to the example, because the answer was forced to backup all its points and provide the equation a better answer could emerge that accounted for factors not previously considered.

---

Now if anything this does impose some restrictions on questions. This means that questions must accept the possibility they are impossible and allow for answers that explain theyre impossible.

Finally

Science is not a process for outright dismissal of claims. Science is the human process by which to convert claim to fact or fiction by answering why or why not based on equally proven facts.