It's always been difficult for me to decide how to treat questions based on clearly incorrect reasoning such as this one.

A lot of times someone is pushing pseudoscience or a well-discredited conjecture.

It's probably not a good idea to reflexively suppress contrarian views, but sometimes a line is crossed and the question doesn't pass the "smell test". Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary data and all that.

History Stack Exchange has a specific close reason for this:

The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a particular theory, cause, group, idea, or person. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about history as defined in the help center.

(This is how they deal with Holocaust deniers and the like).

There is this Earth Science meta discussion about a closely related type of question.

I noticed that when the rock-identification close reason was put in, a bunch of previous ones went away, even the "not about Earth Science" one that had to be put back in later. If this SE is only allowed a limited number of close reasons, that would make me reconsider this idea because the ones we have all seem necessary.

Edit, May 5

I feel this idea merits more discussion than a single comment. I see more and more push questions.

A question like this one seems like a push question to me; maybe someone wants to sue the builders.

| |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think we only need a custom close reason if we get many of a particular type. I haven't noticed we get many crackpot theories, do we? $\endgroup$ – gerrit Jan 14 '19 at 10:59
  • $\begingroup$ @gerrit We regularly get climate change denial questions and plenty of flat and hollow earth stuff. $\endgroup$ – Spencer May 5 '19 at 20:26
  • $\begingroup$ I like the reason given in comments for this question: Where can I find evidence that the earth is flat?, which was closed. The reason being "I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's not asking a serious question in good faith". $\endgroup$ – Fred May 21 '19 at 17:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Fred That's pretty much what the History SE close reason says. $\endgroup$ – Spencer Jul 20 '19 at 14:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .