Is a question with an implausible or logically flawed premise opinion-based?

Question

This question here: If Spider Were the Size of Horses, What Sound Would They Make?

It was met with a VTC by AlexP because "the giant spider can make any sounds required by the story". See the comment exchange for the full picture.

Now, it is important for me to state that "the answer can be whatever the story requires" is not that insightful, as far as critiques go. You can take the most hard science question on the site and give that comment, and be technically correct. It is up to the author what level of scientific hardness they wish to adhere to. More specifically, any question involving magic can receive that comment, because magic is by definition counter-scientific. There are no solid laws of physics to fall back onto because they are already being violated, so surely for any plot another exception can be made. But do we want to banish all magic questions from this site? I don't think so. We receive magic and fantasy questions when the querents accompany their asks with the rules for their systems.

For example: a fire spell that works by extracting heat uniformly from the magic caster's body; how long could they sustain it before suffering hypothermia? "extract heat uniformly from the caster's body" is a rule fine enough to work with; you do not need to specify that the heat is exchanged through quantum tunnelling photons synthesised by midi-chlorians. Such details would never become 100% solid to begin with, as they are not a part of actual science. They need only be clear enough to reason about.

Potential answerers will disagree on what is "clear enough" because we have different levels in scientific education, imaginative power in different quantities and just a different taste in how hard science should be. That's nobody's fault, and sometimes the rules do leave gaps. Take this heat question and strip out the word "uniformly"; now there is ambiguity as to whether it is just the hands cooling down, or everything.

Now, I want to ask you. If you see that fireball question (imagine it also supplies by a couple paragraphs of worldbuilding context and is otherwise valid), notice that there is a gap or inaccuracy in the system described... what do you do?

1. Comment, asking for clarification or pointing out the gap in the logic.
2. Vote to close for Needs Details.
3. Vote to close for Opinion-Based.

As you can guess, I consider this fireball question analogous to the linked spider question (which describes spider anatomy but to an extent some may consider insufficient). Please let me know if you disagree.

Personally, I would do #1 first and only #2 if the question is older than a couple of hours, and/or there are more clarification requests and the querent hasn't addressed them. #3 is something I would personally never do in this case, and I am still trying to figure out why someone would.

My understanding from the comments is that AlexP considers that this question, as stated, is so logically implausible that there is no coherent system left to reason with. Ergo any answer is equally valid, ergo the question is opinion-based.

I think that the first response to a lacking premise is to ask for clarifications, and the second response is to VTC as Needs Details. I reserve Opinion-Based for questions that cannot be salvaged with any amount of added details - not because they are implausible but because they ask something that is intrinsically impossible to answer using facts.

The sounds that an animal can produce are - in the broad sense, as in roars vs. chirps - a property of their anatomy. If the question does not provide enough anatomy to reason with, then the solution is to ask for more details about the anatomy. If no answers are provided, then VTC because there are Not Enough Details. This question is not Opinion-Based and it never will be, until someone asks for the most pleasant key of this spider's mating call.

I am intrigued to hear where other people stand on this.

Answer 1

We really need to start reading between the lines in some cases.

At its core, this flawed premise of the large spider really has some key components even if not explicitly stated.

1. A particular type of spider: Loxosceles reclusa
2. a change away from reality: A horse-sized spider
3. a potentially flawed premise: less gravity/more oxygen to make it possible
4. an end goal: human audible sounds generated by said creature.

In reality, this could be a science-based almost hard science question if you take the sounds a real spider produces and did the math to scale it up. The question doesn't explicitly state this but, you can figure it out by reading between the lines.

An answer that applies to that particular spider is more right than a spider singing celine dion. * shudder *

Answer 2

All exposition/examples aside, let's look at the real question here:

Is a question with an implausible or logically flawed premise opinion-based?

To this my answer is absolutely no. When a question has an implausible or logically flawed premise, it means that the question needs to be answered as a Frame Challenge. Frame Challenges are a specific types of answer than challenges the logic of the question itself, but Frame Challenges are not automatically opinions. You also should not necessarily close vote a logically flawed premise as long as the premise is clear enough to understand what is being asked.

So let's say someone asks something that is absolutely logically flawed like "My character is too weak to use a sword, but she needs a backup weapon for when enemies get to close for her to user her bow; so what would be another good choice for her to carry as a backup weapon?" For those of us that know much about medieval weapons we know that, the swords are already arguably the best weapon for someone who is not strong, and bows require a ton of upper-body strength. So, this question is illogical because anyone who can shoot a bow is strong enough to wield a sword.

This is still a valid question; so, instead of Voting to Close, the correct course of action is to answer it explaining that she SHOULD use a sword as her backup weapon, and why.

As for implausible questions... I don't think a question should ever be closed just because it is implausible. Asking, "how would someone who won the lottery 3 times in a row prove he is not cheating" is super implausible, but good stories are often about when the implausible does happen; so, there is no point in excluding these questions. At most I would leave a comment just to let the OP know how insanely unlikely his idea is, but it's not my place to judge if he decides to continue with his story knowing that it defies the odds.

Now to address the example the OP used

Vote to close for Opinion-Based is supposed to only be for if a question is asking for open-ended ideas. So if the OP asked "What kind of insect should I make the size of a horse", that would be an opinion because you could logically make any insect the size of a horse. Instead, the OP asked what sound a horse sized spider would make. It is not the burden of the OP to have a deep understanding of sound design, or even to have a baseline understanding of how real world spiders sound. That burden lies on those of us answering the question. If you don't have any background in sound design, then this question may sound open ended, but foley artists have all sorts of rules and guidelines by which they design fictional sound effects to match what a viewer is seeing; so, the example question is not opinion-based at all because a half-decent foley artist would be able to follow the rules of his trade to create a best possible answer.

Vote to close for Needs Details is supposed to be for when the question requires follow-up questions to be able to answer. This is different than providing details that are illogical. In the case of the spiders question, there is plenty enough detail to make an educated guess. We know how big the spider is, we know what kind of spider it is based off of, and we have details about the gravity and atmosphere to work with too. More details probably won't really change your answer much here.

So frankly, the spider example is not really a good one for this question since it should not be closed as opinion based, nor does it need detail, nor does it have a flawed premise. If you just don't have the background to answer to the question, then you should let other people answer it who do.

The actually problem that happened here is that one person answered with a very vague opinion which got a lot go votes. Not really the fault of the OP. Sometimes I will VtC a question if something about it is attracting a lot of opinions, and not solid answers, but this example has a few solid, justifiable answers; so, it does not need to be closed just because one person left an opinion

Answer 3

If you're looking for a hard-and-fast metric for casting close votes, you've come to the wrong place for anarchy, brother

You should watch that entire clip to get the joke...

We all know that Worldbuilding is the most subjective Stack in the Exchange. There are days I wonder how on earth it passed the Area 51 tests to become a Stack. But, here we are and it leaves us with two conflicting realities.

1. Stack Exchange does not permit questions that are opinion-based.

2. 90% of worldbuilding questions are opinion-based.

And therein lies a problem that has plagued the Stack since the earliest days. We've tried educating users, creating Meta pages that explained it, modifying the Help Center, leaving clarifying comments... We've accepted the definition, modified the definition, considered ignoring the definition (hah, try convincing people to not use a tool that SE puts in front of them and we can't control)....

And still we get posts here in Meta asking whether or not it was right to VTC a particular question as "Opinion-Based." This was not the first such incident — and believe me it will not be the last.

In a world of subjective questions, nothing is more subjective than deciding what's "too" opinion-based and what is not.

To begin with, I take issue with your hyperbole about hard-science questions being legitimately answerable as "whatever the story requires." I get it that you're frustrated, but that particular tag is intentionally ruthless, and for a reason. It's the one tag on the site where it is legitimately impossible for the question to be opinion-based because no answer is permitted that can't be 100% backed up with citations, mathematics, and documented science. From a purist's point of view, hard-science questions are the one and only type of question on Worldbuilding.SE that entirely meets all of SE's expectations.

Which invites the question, since all other questions are intrinsically opinion-based to one degree or another, where do we draw the opinion-based line?

The Help Center clearly states that no question should be asked where every answer is equally correct. This burdens the querent in two ways:

1. They should try their level best to ask a question that can have an objectively-selected best answer and...

2. They should explain in their question how they will judge a best answer.

Is it reasonable to expect a querent to do these things? Yes. Will they? No.

And that leaves us with an irritating reality that, unfortunately, won't be resolved here. What constitutes "opinion-based" is opinion-based.

Yeah, but what about the specific question?

I agree that the question is opinion-based because, upon a bit of research, Loxosceles reclusa doesn't appear to make noise in real life. Not even a hiss. That might be because it has no capacity to vocalize. It might be that it's too small to have a vocalization anyone cares about. Either way, it's impossible to judge what vocalization capabilities a similar (and fictional) creature would have were it the size of a horse.

Which means, without the OP explaining how he/she will judge a best answer (by providing goals, limitations, conditions, restrictions, and assumptions), every answer is equally valid — violating a clear rule in the Help Center.

The fundamental problem is this: where possible, respondents draw from real life to rationalize an (often fantastic) answer. But without that baseline information (which an albeit quick Google search did not reveal), what we have is nothing more than a guess.

In my book, guess === opinion-based.

Answer 4

I think both reasons are equally valid: the lack of details is striking, and because of the lack of details any answer is equally valid and answer are likely to be based on opinions.

Don't forget that the closing reasons are not an orthogonal set, thus some overlapping it's very likely to happen.

Answer 5

I agree with IT Alex. Many questions on WB.SE are basically word problems or their variants as applicable to other fields of knowledge. Unfortunately, not all people are good at this type of problem and cannot recognise relevant parts of a problem within a text.

I do not think that this can be solved in any meaningful way. We can recommend people to read more and work on their reading comprehension, but I would not expect that everyone will follow this type of recommendation. Not to mention, that many people will feel offended.

It is also impractical to demand people to structure their questions in a specific, strictly regulated way aiming to make information easier to comprehend. While it works for maths and physics, it may not work for other areas. I also believe that it would place an undue burden on new users unless it is possible to include the default question template in the question field.

AlexP's comments touch on another frequent problem: Inability to suspend disbelief. This type of comment can be seen very often when premises are flawed. IMO, in this case, a real reason for VTC is 'I do not believe your premise'. Everything else, including the formal reason for VTC, is just a rationalisation.

I also do not see a way to solve this or even to address this in any constructive way. WB.SE community is not some type of organisation where anti-bias training can be routinely conducted.

Overall, I think that the opinion-based reason for closure is grossly misused and abused on WB.SE. I saw people VTC questions as opinion-based when they do not understand the question, when they do not read the question, when they do not like the author of the question, when they do not accept the premise, and a multitude of other reasons that have nothing to do with opinions or facts or citations.

On the other hand, there are plenty of questions that cannot be possibly answered with facts and citations or have an objectively better answer. Yet, they are not closed. They are upvoted. And those very people who VTC virtually similar questions as opinion-based happily post answers.

Opinion-based seems to stand for 'I do not like this question' rather than anything else.

---

A note on opinion-based as the question where the best/correct answer can not be determined using specified requirements (or the question that can have multiple equally valid answers)

I do not think it is a useful criterion. It only works with questions that are essentially disguised maths problems. But it does not work that well for anything else.

Let's do a thought experiment: A question about the construction of a bridge. Let's assume that the question is properly formulated, easy to understand, and has all relevant information including specific requirements for the best bridge design.

Let's assume that 3 out of 10 answers satisfy all the requirements stated by the OP. Each of these 3 excellent answers comes with blueprints, calculations, etc. They are equally good and equally valid. The only way to determine which one is 'better' is the OP's preferences. Therefore, the bridge construction question should be closed as opinion-based. That wouldn't be very productive.

Another consideration is that StackExchange and WB.SE (see the bottom of the page) do allow specific types of subjective questions. It is simply not true that SE or WB.SE is strictly limited to questions that have one and only one best/correct answer.

Moreover, the majority of questions on WB.SE (the ones that are not disguised maths problems) are treated as subjective questions and answered using opinions. Very few people take time and effort to back all their statements with facts and citations.