I have a question about my Philosophy Stack Exchange post: Philosophy of Logic – Converting formal proofs to sound deductive inference

What policy or guidance prevents people from closing posts as unclear that are unclear only because the person closing the post lacks the required prerequisite knowledge?

[![enter image description here][1]][1]

Closing posts as unclear (that are perfectly clear) seems to be a way around that fact that there is no button to close a post for breaking the non existent rule that peer reviews are not allowed. This really seems to be far less than fully forthcoming and thus a serious breach of professional decorum.

If there is no rule saying peer reviews are not allowed, and there is no button that allows closing a post for breaking the rule that peer reviews are not allowed then the honest approach would seem to refrain from closing such posts. The approach currently being employed seems unethical.

This assumes that the peer review question fits the Q&A model in that this question is focused on a single point having a precise objective answer.

  • it's a "moral" clique, not a community. don't sweat it so – user38026 May 14 '19 at 17:31
  • 1
    @another_name My future depends upon making these points understood. This is not some little hobbyist sideline for me. – PL_OLCOTT May 14 '19 at 21:22
  • then you should have a tutor that can help. – user38026 May 14 '19 at 21:25
  • @another_name The only tutor that could possibly help is other PhD's that have already published in the field. I only found one guy in the last 22 years that ever said much more than blah blah blah you are wrong because I really believe that you are wrong and he was here on SE. My presentation has improved a lot in the last 22 years, and especially in the last two weeks. – PL_OLCOTT May 15 '19 at 1:59
  • 3
    Why does your future depends upon making these points understood? – user37165 May 16 '19 at 1:43
  • @ PhilipKlöcking Although the question may be somewhat of a duplicate I had to ask it again because I only got dodges rather than answers. The answer that I cobbled together is that posts are closed as unclear that are perfectly clear. They are closed for breaking the non-existent rule that asking for peer review is forbidden when there is no such rule at all. philosophy.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic – PL_OLCOTT May 18 '19 at 3:17

If your question is unclear to the community of Philosophy.SE users then it's sufficient reason for closure. The burden is on you to make it clear, not on us to figure out what you mean.

But the real problem with your post (and your previous ones) is that you're not really asking a question. You're posting original work, but this is not the place for that.

  • So if I really did come up with something very significant it would be impossible to get sufficient peer review to make my words clear enough to be understood to get published. – PL_OLCOTT May 13 '19 at 21:29
  • 6
    @PL_OLCOTT This site isn't a proof reading service if that's what you're after. If you want peer review then submit a paper to a journal. – curiousdannii May 14 '19 at 1:59
  • @curiousdannii I am not talking about proof reading. I have tried submitting to journals after six months the only feedback that I got was no thanks we are not interested. I am right on the verge of saying it clearly enough to be understood. A SE member acknowledged that he both understood and agreed that the first half of my idea is correct. He agreed that I have correctly translated conventional valid deduction to its formal proof equivalent. The next half is doing this same thing for sound deduction. – PL_OLCOTT May 14 '19 at 2:23
  • @curiousdannii I can't possibly make any progress on this unless I get feedback on whether or not what I am saying is understood. I have always totally understood everything that I have said and it seems quite baffling that others do not. – PL_OLCOTT May 14 '19 at 2:23
  • 1
    @PL_OLCOTT Submit to another journal? Enrol in a university's philosophy program? – curiousdannii May 14 '19 at 2:24
  • 2
    @PL_OLCOTT If there aren't 5 users (out of our 28 thousand!) who do have the prerequisite background knowledge who could reopen the question, then the reality is the question probably shouldn't be reopened. Because you can be sure there'll be more than enough people with no idea who would write answers anyway if it were open. – curiousdannii May 14 '19 at 2:48
  • 2
    @PL_OLCOTT How do you propose to prevent cranks coming along and declaring we just don't understand their new philosophies well enough and therefore can't close their questions? – curiousdannii May 14 '19 at 4:49
  • 4
    @PL_OLCOTT You don't need any background in mathematics nor philosophy to see that you failed do ask a question. There is a close reason "push of personal philosophy" which states that questions that do not really ask anything beyond "am I right" or "what do you say" are supposed to be closed because they are off-topic. In other words: StackExchange is not the right place to serve your needs. The users acted correctly and there is no need for such a rule. – Philip Klöcking Mod May 14 '19 at 17:10
  • 2
    @PL_OLCOTTp A question can be off-topic here both because of not being about philosophy and because of not being about what StackExchange is about. There is nothing dishonest in saying that the latter is the case here. – Philip Klöcking Mod May 14 '19 at 17:30
  • 2
    @PL_OLCOTT Our reply to you is similar to the one you got from journals: No, thank you. – Eliran May 14 '19 at 17:33
  • 4
    @PL_OLCOOT as far as I know, participating here doesn't even count as "service to the profession or community at large" for most of us who do have PhDs. This a completely voluntary thing for everyone involved. We have no obligation to help you sort out your novel proof. / In short, this isn't the right venue to get that sort of help. – virmaior May 15 '19 at 2:06
  • 3
    Absurd. There's plenty of other venues available. (1) You can e-mail faculty who work in the area you are in. (2) You can write a blog. (3) You can post on reddit. (4) you can hire a tutor. / you're confusing a SE called philosophy with a one-stop shop for anything you want related to philosophy. – virmaior May 15 '19 at 2:57
  • 1
    I think you'd be surprised at how cheaply you could hire a PhD. Someone did it for $1000. (steve-patterson.com/responding-jason-brennans-review-square-one) – virmaior May 15 '19 at 4:36
  • 1
    @PL_OLCOTT: The close reason that is given is that which most of the voters gave. And it is perfectly ok to say "unclear what you are asking". It is not about the content being unclear, but there being no question. And even if the close reason itself wasn't the most appropriate one, this would not make it worth reopening, since as pointed out often enough, there are other valid reasons to keep it closed. – Philip Klöcking Mod May 18 '19 at 20:45
  • 3
    @PL_OLCOTT "I ask for peer review" is not the same as asking a question. The purpose of StackExchange is creating a knowledge database on diverse subjects in a Q&A format. Peer review does not have this format, hence it's off topic. There is no point in discussing this, it is obvious for everyone but you, who probably does understand it, but refuses to accept it because of your needs standing in the way. I am sympathetic with that, but this is not the place for peer review. – Philip Klöcking Mod May 18 '19 at 21:28

Members are permitted to cast close votes if they have a reputation of 500 or more. There are no other requirements. Here is the privilege page for other available privileges and the required reputation: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/help/privileges

As an alternative to asking questions what you might do is read the questions and answers tagged with topics you are interested in. This will give you a feel for what kind of questions people here are able to answer. Perhaps you can answer some of the questions yourself. Perhaps they will suggest specific questions you might ask.

  • 1
    I need a very specific question answered that has never been asked. What would solve my problem with this is that all of the people that do not know the subject material would not be allowed to vote that it is unclear when it is only unclear because they don't know the subject material. – PL_OLCOTT May 14 '19 at 4:22
  • 1
    @PL_OLCOTT There is a good chance that no one here knows the answer to the question. I don't know the answer. That is why I am suggesting an indirect approach that involves looking at related questions and answers. – Frank Hubeny May 14 '19 at 10:12
  • Alternatively people that have no idea what I am talking about could quit voting my posts to deletion so that someone that does know the subject matter could eventually respond – PL_OLCOTT May 14 '19 at 17:38
  • "Members are permitted to cast close votes if they have a reputation of 500 or more. There are no other requirements." I think that telling the truth would be a requirement. If a member votes to close for clarity and it does not really have a clarity problem they would be fibbing. This is an ethical violation on their part. – PL_OLCOTT May 18 '19 at 4:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .