In comments to this question, there's a kind of discussion regarding how "Why?"-questions should be perceived by the Linguistics community.
As far as I understood, those who think that such questions are offtopic, argue that questions like "Why [such thing has occurred]?" are impossible/hard to be answered, due to the nature of Linguistics and, most probably, many other humanities
On the other hand (and I'm also inclined to believe) that "why-" and "how-" questions are actually the only ones that are on-topic with StackExchange sites like this.
In fact, a quotation from Good Subjective, Bad Subjective blog post:
Great subjective questions inspire answers that explain “why” and “how”. The best subjective questions invite explanation. If you’re asking for a product recommendation of some kind, you want answers to contain detailed information about the features and how they can be used, and why you might want to choose one over the other. “How?” and “Why?” has more lasting value than a bunch of product-feature bullet points or a giant enumerated list, no matter how extensive. In contrast, the bad subjective questions let answerers get away with hit-and-run answers that maybe provide a name and a link — but fail to provide any sort of adequate explanation, context, or background.
Indeed, "why-" questions, like the linked one, may attract answers that contain controversial hypotheses, or some researches that are not (yet) mainstream of modern science, but in any case they would serve two most crucial goals of the StackExchange network:
- Provide with valuable information;
- Invite the readers think for themselves.
So, my question is, what is our attitude towards "why-" questions?