I just read How would a physicist explain this starship engine?. I actually like the question, but I wonder if it's opening a bag of worms?
The Cons I See
When I asked the community about the "technobabble" tag created for one or more questions, the community responded with a resounding "NO!" Questions of the type "how would X explain Y?" touch on this issue, because explaining a fictional concept in terms of physics is still technobabble.
The question type appears to be intrinsically primarily opinion-based in that there is no possible way for the OP to determine which is the best answer. He/she must either depend on popular vote to identify it or we must accept that the "best answer" will only be the answer the OP believes best meets the narrative necessity of his/her story.1
The Pros I See
I could easily imagine this becoming a popular question type. Most authors lack the expertise in some if not many of the professions and vocations represented in their stories. Help from people that "speak the lingo" to describe a world rule or system is a fundamental necessity.
The challenge of trying to crowbar fiction into science piques my interest.
Question: Should "how would X explain Y?" questions be on-topic or off-topic?
- Please justify your perspective within the Stack Exchange framework. Because, at the end of the day, if we can't support the idea via SE, it's moot.
1 If the OP had the credentials to actually pick a best answer based on the the science, why bother asking the question? This harks back to the "Only Three Books" questions wherein it was impossible for the OP to make a rational "best answer" decision.