Too fast closing of questions from humanities

Question

We've got another question with a background in humanities which was closed almost immediately. Another such is discussed here. The reason in both cases was that it's too subjective, rather argumentative and no objective answer could be provided. It seems to me this might be a pattern we need to be careful about. It seems to me that both questions and discussions around them implicitly assume that the question cannot be objectively answered. That however rules out any scientific discourse based on softer criteria. I argue that such questions should not be closed so quickly, there indeed might be good answers to them rooted in research in humanities, history, sociology, etc.

Considering the discussion here, my feeling is that due to the current composition of academia.SE audience which is skewed towards people from exact scientific disciplines, we might be too dismissive about questions from humanities. This way, we won't succeed to attract people from those areas. We should rather find a way to embrace such softer questions.

Answer 1

As somebody with a strong liberal arts background, I can sympathize that most of the questions here do come from people with a science background—but that makes sense, given the host of the board!

However, the question you cite at the top of the page is way too broad for the Q&A format Stack Exchange promotes. "Why is X the way it is now?" questions are usually poor fits for formats like SE sites.

As a moderator, however, I will keep an eye out for questions that are being given too short a leash. I prefer to keep things community-moderated (since I am a volunteer, not an elected mod), but will step in if things are getting out of hand.

Answer 2

I am a little confused about why the linked question leads to this question, but in general I think we are closing some of these broad questions too quickly. It seems the decision is that the answer will be subjective and long. I think for many of these types of questions someone with the expertise could write a really good reasonable length answer. We don't have very many unanswered question, so leaving some of these open wouldn't be a big problem and we could see if eventually we get people with the required expertise.

Answer 3

I'm not sure to see the connection with humanities. The form of questions and answers does not depend on the underlying academic field, but on common language. Whether you're a philosopher or a physicist, the objectivity of a question is identical. You can bring facts from social sciences, humanities, history, or anything else, as long as they are facts. Whenever it starts with "I believe that ..., but I don't have anything to support it", that's not objective.

That however rules out any scientific discourse based on softer criteria. I argue that such questions should not be closed so quickly, there indeed might be good answers to them rooted in research in humanities, history, sociology, etc.

They can have root in research in such fields, and if there are corresponding publications, they become facts. If there is question where the answer can be: "yes, look at the paper published by X in Y", then regardless of the underlying field, that's an objective answer.