*There was a lot of vigorous debate in the comments on a recent [meta-question](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3228/should-skeptics-se-be-moved-to-the-science-section). A substantial part of it seemed to be arguing about a particular sub-question. This is an attempt to draw out the sub-question.*

The [Skeptics.SE tour](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/tour) makes a claim:

> 
> Skeptics is a question and answer site for applying scientific skepticism.
> 
> 
> 

What does that mean in theory? That has been [asked before](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1844/what-is-meant-by-the-word-scientific-in-this-sites-scientific-skepticism). I would offer the [Wikipedia page on scientific skepticism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism) as a good starting point. It offers several different (consistent?) definitions of scientific skepticism.

In practice, a number of community standards are used to limit the type of answers, including eschewing:

* Anecdotal answers
* Answers based entirely on speculative, logic, mathematics and theoretical models, without empirical evidence
* Original research
* Discussion focussed on the nature or practice of skepticism itself on the main site (although, it is welcome in Meta.)

The question here is whether what we *practise* matches what we *claim*. **Do we actually apply scientific skepticism on Skeptics.SE?**

Related question: From the private beta period, about what the original text should have claimed: [Should the question asking instructions be referring to "scientific skepticism"?](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/581/should-the-question-asking-instructions-be-referring-to-scientific-skepticism)