I've been looking at the question What brain resources are needed per limb? The OP originally included the hard-science tag, but there's since been some disagreement about its use. Someone removed the tag in an edit, then I rolled the edit back, then there were some flags asking for its removal, then the OP flagged the question saying the tag was justified, then the text from that flag was edited in, and now the tag has been edited out. Throughout all of this, the question received five answers, four of which have the hard-science post notice.
I'm going to try to list the arguments for and against having the tag:
Keep the tag because . . .
- The OP had it there originally and clearly wants it to be used.
- I don't think the question cannot yield hard-science answers (though others disagree).
- Even if there is no hard-science answers, one should be able to write such an answer explaining why. This is kind of in line with the idea of challenging the premise of a question - which is generally acceptable.
- Just because an answer ignores the tag doesn't mean that that's okay.
Remove the tag because . . .
- Some argue that it's not a hard-science premise.
- There are already good non-hard-science answers.
What are people's thoughts on this specific case? I'm currently kind of on the fence.
Related meta discussions: Identifying incorrectly tagged [hard-science] questions, Is the use of the [Hard-Science] tag acceptable in questions with a non-hard premise?