9

Another reason to keep these questions on-topic is that it fills a need. Scientific software is often poorly documented, and community-created software doesn't usually provide a support team for basic questions. There are sometimes support forums available, but the StackExchange model is usually a superior way of organizing questions and answers. If this ...


7

I read your post, but I wasn't entirely clear about what your question is, but I'll focus on your main title question: "Is cognitive sciences stack exchange scientific?" The site is scientific in several respects: most of the users with the most reputation have scientific qualifications in cognitive sciences answers that get upvoted tend to have a ...


6

I think such questions should stay on CogSci, because: Relevant audience. Computational neuroscientists would be more likely to visit CogSci, and be able to answer such questions at CogSci than at other sites. They would be less relevant at StackOverflow. Few people there would be interested in using comp neuro software, and even fewer would have the ...


5

I think they are on-topic barred that the answer should contain something related to Cognitive Sciences. For example take this question: Python MNE - reading EEG data from array The only reference to CogSci is that the input variable is obtained via an EEG DAQ system. No more, no less. The question can be answered by anyone proficient in Python. Stripping ...


4

First of all, welcome at CogSci.SE. Recently we've been having a rather extensive discussion about what is on- and off-topic here. As you can see in the linked meta-post, sociology is on topic. To quote the post: We decided to welcome any cognitive science, in line with the definition of Wikipedia. This includes any field which tackles the mind or its ...


4

Good point. I think Biology SE has a higher level of 'scientificness' in that the users actively encourage the use of citations in answers by downvoting those that don't. Also, consistently commenting on those answers that lack proper citations helps. Promoting the use of citations to articles and not wiki pages (although admittedly I use wikipedia pages in ...


3

I agree with Steven. The broad topic of the effect of movies, books, etc. on our behaviour, affect and cognitions is on topic. However, the particular question seems quite vague regarding what particular post-movie experience you are talking about.


3

Questions about the cognitive origins of spirituality are on-topic. Questions about the behavior of an individual are off-topic. The quoted part, as well as the rest of the question, are clearly about the poster (emphasis mine): I can't differentiate if spiritual feeling is because of my childhood memory or is genetically embedded in me. I can see ...


2

It never did. I closed your Q because it was self-help. You edited by adding... How can I do a controlled experiment or test to determine which chemical is giving me a mental advantage in creative thinking? ...and now it's OK for me.


2

Short answer Don't ask. Background The majority of the questions closed here, and across the SE network among the scientific sites are the dreaded self-help questions. These are closed on this site with the message: [P]ut on hold as off-topic by John Doe et al. This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific ...


1

I don't think it is off-topic. Indeed god gene is a thing. It has been proposed that the ability to have believe in god or supernature, has a genetic or molecular basis. Localisation of expression site for VMAT-2. its variation has been linked to the phenotype of having believe or faith in god. animated image from Wikipedia having this Wikimedia ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible