2

I just noticed Joseph close a question What can suffice as a scientific proof for God? to what domain can such a proof belong to? as "not constructive" with an excellent description:

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

We get many questions that do not fit for exactly these reasons (and frankly, answers too), but I do not see this option showing up in the menu for the close button. Perhaps the closest one there is "primarily opinion-based", but that is not quite it. Can we add it to the "off-topic because" list? (thanks to Keelan for this suggestion)

  • 1
    I think it felt pejorative. I'm not sure I ever loved calling a question that quite so bluntly, for what it's worth. – Joseph Weissman Jun 1 '18 at 2:03
  • 1
    The reason was network-wide, and then removed network-wide. I cannot find the relevant Meta.SE post at the moment. I agree it is a good close reason, and I never understood why it was removed. In principle, we can change the list under "off topic" and could add something like this there, but then it would be useful to first get some input from the community team as to why the reason was removed. – Keelan Jun 1 '18 at 5:10
  • That close reason description is essentially the same as POB: "Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise." – curiousdannii Jun 1 '18 at 15:53
  • 1
    @Keelan it's documented on this MSE post, the gist is "What's important is that whatever's wrong, the current close reason doesn't convey it to the OP, so he still can't improve or avoid it." with the conclusion "eliminate "Not Constructive" and "Not a Real Question", and replace them with more specific reasons: unclear, too broad, POB" – Andrew T. Jun 1 '18 at 15:58
  • "Closed as not fully developed" may be better. We can easily see, as an example, that such a question as PBX's on 911 may make some people feel uncomfortable, and be closed as "not constructive". I think this would be a bad trend if the "not constructive" label was used in that way. We do get some truly oddball questions, but then we get some that are "on the line" and which contain a spark of true insight, but the poster lacks the philosophical vocabulary and knowledge to properly link his thoughts to the "normal" philosophical discourse we may like to use here. – Gordon Jun 1 '18 at 19:34
  • 1
    @JosephWeissman I do not much care for the title either, it is the description that is good, we have to write that, more or less, in the comments anyway. The simplest thing is to do what Keelan suggested, add the description to the "off-topic because" list. – Conifold Jun 1 '18 at 22:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .