Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.
Are you here to participate in a specific proposal? Click on the proposal tag (with the dark outline) to see only posts about that proposal and not all of the others that are in progress. Tags are at the bottom of each post.
Post History
Categories The voting on this post and its crosspost on Scientific Speculation has been positive. The only other feedback so far has been on Sci Spec. An answer there pushed back on the idea of ...
#2: Post edited
by
Monica Cellio
·
2026-07-16T02:37:55Z (2 months ago)
- The voting on this post and its crosspost on Scientific Speculation has been positive. The only other feedback so far has been on Sci Spec. An [answer there](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/posts/295348/295486#answer-295486) pushed back on the idea of segregating the science questions:
- > I'm not sold on this category split, though. If two "main" categories are needed, I'd think that it's the "rigourous science" that should be split out, while informal speculative musing (other sci-spec) shares space with pure imagination (worldbuilding), differentiated by tags.
- >
- > But actually I'm not sold that world-building entails throwing rigour away. Someone might want to know what happens in the real-world in a particular situation, specifically with an eye towards writing about it in a fictional context. And strict logical reasoning can be applied to counterfactual premises ("what if XYZ fundamental constant were different?"), although there may be limits to how far that can be taken. I'd propose starting with a General category and seeing whether tags are sufficient, first.
- Scientific Speculation spun off from Worldbuilding (on SE) originally because people wanted to exclude magic, for which the answer is often "it's magic; you can make it do whatever you want". But we have filters here, so a tag-based approach could work. I asked the Sci Spec community for feedback but haven't received any so far.
- What if we had a single (general) Q&A category, like most communities here, and added a "topic tag" for science-only (no magic)? A topic tag is styled differently; the tags for individual proposals here are examples. They're still tags, so you can filter based on them, but they also stand out a bit, which could help with the problem that Sci Spec set out to address.
- If we do this, then
- > - Move posts from Sci Spec's Q&A and Rigorous Science categories into the new Science Only category
- would instead become:
- - Tag posts from Sci Spec's Q&A and Rigorous Science categories with "science-only" and then move them into the Q&A category.
- The new community would thus have just three categories: Q&A, Meta, and Workshop.
- Feedback? (I'll post a similar answer over there too, to make sure we're reaching all the affected people.)
- ### Categories
- The voting on this post and its crosspost on Scientific Speculation has been positive. The only other feedback so far has been on Sci Spec. An [answer there](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/posts/295348/295486#answer-295486) pushed back on the idea of segregating the science questions:
- > I'm not sold on this category split, though. If two "main" categories are needed, I'd think that it's the "rigourous science" that should be split out, while informal speculative musing (other sci-spec) shares space with pure imagination (worldbuilding), differentiated by tags.
- >
- > But actually I'm not sold that world-building entails throwing rigour away. Someone might want to know what happens in the real-world in a particular situation, specifically with an eye towards writing about it in a fictional context. And strict logical reasoning can be applied to counterfactual premises ("what if XYZ fundamental constant were different?"), although there may be limits to how far that can be taken. I'd propose starting with a General category and seeing whether tags are sufficient, first.
- Scientific Speculation spun off from Worldbuilding (on SE) originally because people wanted to exclude magic, for which the answer is often "it's magic; you can make it do whatever you want". But we have filters here, so a tag-based approach could work. I asked the Sci Spec community for feedback but haven't received any so far.
- What if we had a single (general) Q&A category, like most communities here, and added a "topic tag" for science-only (no magic)? A topic tag is styled differently; the tags for individual proposals here are examples. They're still tags, so you can filter based on them, but they also stand out a bit, which could help with the problem that Sci Spec set out to address.
- If we do this, then
- > - Move posts from Sci Spec's Q&A and Rigorous Science categories into the new Science Only category
- would instead become:
- - Tag posts from Sci Spec's Q&A and Rigorous Science categories with "science-only" and then move them into the Q&A category.
- The new community would thus have just three categories: Q&A, Meta, and Workshop.
- Feedback? (I'll post a similar answer over there too, to make sure we're reaching all the affected people.)
#1: Initial revision
by
Monica Cellio
·
2026-07-16T02:35:31Z (2 months ago)
The voting on this post and its crosspost on Scientific Speculation has been positive. The only other feedback so far has been on Sci Spec. An [answer there](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/posts/295348/295486#answer-295486) pushed back on the idea of segregating the science questions:
> I'm not sold on this category split, though. If two "main" categories are needed, I'd think that it's the "rigourous science" that should be split out, while informal speculative musing (other sci-spec) shares space with pure imagination (worldbuilding), differentiated by tags.
>
> But actually I'm not sold that world-building entails throwing rigour away. Someone might want to know what happens in the real-world in a particular situation, specifically with an eye towards writing about it in a fictional context. And strict logical reasoning can be applied to counterfactual premises ("what if XYZ fundamental constant were different?"), although there may be limits to how far that can be taken. I'd propose starting with a General category and seeing whether tags are sufficient, first.
Scientific Speculation spun off from Worldbuilding (on SE) originally because people wanted to exclude magic, for which the answer is often "it's magic; you can make it do whatever you want". But we have filters here, so a tag-based approach could work. I asked the Sci Spec community for feedback but haven't received any so far.
What if we had a single (general) Q&A category, like most communities here, and added a "topic tag" for science-only (no magic)? A topic tag is styled differently; the tags for individual proposals here are examples. They're still tags, so you can filter based on them, but they also stand out a bit, which could help with the problem that Sci Spec set out to address.
If we do this, then
> - Move posts from Sci Spec's Q&A and Rigorous Science categories into the new Science Only category
would instead become:
- Tag posts from Sci Spec's Q&A and Rigorous Science categories with "science-only" and then move them into the Q&A category.
The new community would thus have just three categories: Q&A, Meta, and Workshop.
Feedback? (I'll post a similar answer over there too, to make sure we're reaching all the affected people.)