5

Congratulations everyone on our new flashy site name! Psychology & Neuroscience!

As AliceD pointed out, with the name change come a few other things which need to be changed/rephrased. One of them being our custom close reason 'not framed in cognitive sciences':

This question is not framed within the cognitive sciences. It is based on assumptions which are not made explicit, are not well-motivated (e.g., referenced), or are not held to be true within the cognitive sciences.

What (if anything) should this be changed to? Shall we simply edit the current post people are referred to on meta for this, or write up a new one?

3

Based on the suggestions by AliceD and Seanny123 and my comments thereon, I suggest:

This question is not framed in psychology or neuroscience. It is based on assumptions which are not made explicit, are not well-motivated (e.g., referenced), or are not held to be true within any of the research fields on-topic here.

Notice that I also replaced the redundant 'psychology or neuroscience' with 'any of the research fields on-topic here'. Hopefully this makes clear other fields are included, such as linguistics, psychiatry, etc ...

  • 1
    I like it, but would rephrase "not held to be true within any of the research fields that are on topic on this site" to "not held to be true within any of the on-topic research fields of this site". – Seanny123 Jan 10 '18 at 17:17
  • Or perhaps: "not held to be true within any of the research fields on-topic on this site"? :) – Steven Jeuris Jan 11 '18 at 12:02
  • "on-topic on this site" sounds weird to me because there's too many "on" but that's a nitpick I csn let go of. – Seanny123 Jan 11 '18 at 13:11
  • @Seanny123 ".. that are on-topic here."? :) – Steven Jeuris Jan 11 '18 at 14:41
  • 1
    Oh jeez, this exercise is really exposing my linguistic quirks. "that are" feels like adding too many words. However, I am okay with "not held to be true within any of the research fields on-topic here." – Seanny123 Jan 11 '18 at 14:43
  • 1
    @Seanny123 In that case we have a winner we agree on. ;p – Steven Jeuris Jan 11 '18 at 14:44
1

I agree with Seanny, but perhaps I'd like to change some addiitonals. Mainly because something is not 'framed within' something. It is 'framed in', but better even, 'embedded in a framework', or 'based on a framework' so:

This question is not based on a Psychology or Neuroscience framework. It is based on assumptions which are not made explicit, are not well-motivated (e.g., referenced), or are not held to be true within Psychology or Neuroscience.

Edit: based om the comments below and some personal after thoughts:

This question is not framed in psychology or neuroscience. It is based on implicit assumptions, it is not well-motivated (e.g., referenced), or it is based on faulty premises.

And now I am reading it in its shortened form - '...or it is based on faulty premises." I think this is not a reason to close a question? An answer can point out what that faulty premise is, can't it?

  • 2
    In that case, I personally prefer "framed in Psychology or Neuroscience". Relying on 'framework' sounds a bit contrived and to me does not clarify much. – Steven Jeuris Jan 5 '18 at 11:33
  • 2
    @StevenJeuris Shouldn't "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" be lowercase? After all, we're using English here, not German. – Christophe Strobbe Jan 6 '18 at 19:13
  • 1
    @ChristopheStrobbe sounds good to me; I'll edit. – AliceD Jan 6 '18 at 19:15
  • @StevenJeuris - I changed some other things too. E.g., Which are not made explicit can be simply replaced by implicit, among some other stuff. – AliceD Jan 6 '18 at 19:18
  • 1
    "based on implicit assumptions" is not the same as "assumptions which are not made explicit"; I still prefer the latter. Any question is based on implicit assumptions. The latter phrasing (to me) reads more along the lines of "important assumptions which are not made explicit". The inverse would be something along the lines of "important implicit assumptions which should be made explicit". – Steven Jeuris Jan 7 '18 at 13:00
  • 1
    Likewise, "faulty premises" is not the same as "not held to be through in". One seems to dictate a universal truth out there, the other makes clear from which perspective they are not held to be true. There are many different (competing) perspectives within psychology & neuroscience. The point is not that it should be 'true' or 'false', it should be written from a perspective within these fields. (Also why Freud and such is still on topic and are valid questions.) – Steven Jeuris Jan 7 '18 at 13:06
0

Let's just edit the current meta post. Here's my proposed rephrasing:

This question is not framed within psychology, nor neuroscience. It is based on assumptions which are not made explicit, are not well-motivated (e.g., referenced), or are not held to be true within the psychology, nor neuroscience.

You must log in to answer this question.

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