I made some questions, that had no being very well recived. I would like some suggetions about how to improve it, and some explanations/hypothesis of why is no being well recived.


  1. Could the Praxeology of the ASoE win the battle against the scientist agenda?
  2. If someone consider Mathemetics & Logic as scientific disiplines, then also should consider analityc philosophy as a science?
  3. Brand humanization is ethical?
  4. There is a know solution solution to standard strong-narrow scientism's refutation flaw?
  5. If some individual have consciousness implies it has sentience and vice versa?
  6. Mathematics is discipline able to produce knowledge?
  • 4
    spelling and clarity issues are definitely hampering comprehensibility with some of these (even just considering the titles)
    – Joseph Weissman Mod
    Oct 30, 2021 at 18:07
  • 1
    Start by asking questions that could be answered objectively. Only after you feel more comfortable with the Stack Exchange format and Philosophy site community should people then delve into the murkier ground of subjective questions. Nov 7, 2021 at 10:36

1 Answer 1


Well, you are persistent! After being ignored for two weeks by the community, you have persevered. :D Bully!

Your question has been asked and answered before, so use that search bar above. Get to know the StackExchange resources. But, I'll start you off with my macro boilerplate:

Welcome to SE Philosophy! Thanks for your contribution. Please take a quick moment to take the tour or find help. You can perform searches here or seek additional clarification at the meta site. Don't forget, when someone has answered your question, you can click on the arrow to reward the contributor and the checkmark to select what you feel is the best answer.


Please be aware that questions and answers are subject to editing and closure, and that reflects the site's policies on acceptable questions and NOT a personal attack. What to avoid in questions. Anything closed can be edited to bring it within guidelines. Keeping questions on-topic. Additional clarification at MetaPhil.

But to be honest, there's a fine art to writing a good philosophical question, and even when you do, the priesthood here is a well-intentioned, but fickle and divergent bunch. If you are serious about self-improvement in philosophy and intending on sticking around (many users quickly get frustrated and quit), then read up a little on my views regarding a post that was closed as site-off-topic despite it literally has an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Part of my objection was that 2 of the 3 site moderators voted it as off-topic, which I found telling. If memory serves, I was unable to get the question reopened. But that's probably more due to my pointing at the naked emperors, self-appointed and otherwise.

Let's have a look-see. First, are these homework questions? When fired off short, and in rapid succession, they can create the appearance you're just looking for people to do your homework. That's not really popular here. Questions don't seem particularly atrocious for what is normally posted here. Your question on sentience has closure votes some of which are for it being a dupe of this PhilSE post. First thing you want to do is do a little research with the search bar and see if your question has been asked. If you believe you have a different question, it's important to build into the question HOW it's different from what's been asked and answered.

Weissman's point about clarity and spelling is valid. It might help to flesh out more of what you are trying to communicate since a challenged syntax can be met with extra writing to help clarify the concepts involved. If English isn't your first language (es gibt Andere! hay muchas idiomas en el mundo! il mondo e molto grande!), if you're not clear on language use, consider using EnglishSE, or include your uncertainty about terms in the post. No shame in not being a native speaker, considering most native speakers are prisoners of their own language.

Your question about Austrian economics (if it can be called that ;) seems ideological-driven at first glance. "Could the Paxeology of Ludwig von Mises win the battle against the scientist agenda?" This question has closure votes for being opinionated. While opinion questions are allowed as per the site, there's a strong anti-opinion bias among closers here because of an intolerance for debate and the use of philosophical discourse in the broader sense. The powers-that-be prefer a more Q&A-style approach which consists of:

  1. A clear, well-formed question of philosophical fact as found in canonical or published literature.
  2. Sufficient clarity of language, concept, and intent.
  3. Good references when possible.

Of course, each of these is highly normative. What constitutes a well-formed question, clarity, or a good reference takes some investigation. I'd recommend doing your homework in these references before you begin:

  1. Wikipedia and Britannica (Both are the broadest and most accessible intellectually)
  2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (These two are tertiary sources written by philosophers for philosophers and are a bit more challenging.)
  3. Google Books and The Gutenberg Project have great catalogs, the latter, particularly for older philosophy.
  4. And lastly archives of philosophical papers and such, PhilPapers, PhilSci, and others. (Primary sources are the best! But sometimes tough to wrap your mind around.)

Most importantly, don't quit! This place is a bit stultified with the broader notion of philosophical inquiry inhibited for beginners, but there's a trove of learnedness, pointers to sources, and explanations of ideas here. Keep in mind the system is refereed by committee, that contributions are by volunteers, and that ratings and expertise don't necessarily align. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again, as they say.

So, keep calm, and study philosophy.


You must log in to answer this question.

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