# Is it WRONG to 'tip the scales' toward certain answer POVs with a bounty?

Would it accord with community norms to offer a bounty with the intention of stimulating new answers to a question, coming from certain perspectives that one regards as neglected on CV? For example, one perspective I would like to see more vigorously represented in answers here is one that maintains skepticism about purely mechanical modes of statistical inference (especially in the social and medical sciences), and urges making meaningful connections between statistical models and realistic theoretical mechanisms/constructs.

I ask because one objection I can anticipate is that offering such a bounty might seem like 'lobbying' unfairly for a certain POV, and (worse, perhaps) suppressing alternative POVs.

Epilogue: Thanks to guidance provided from all sides here, I've now offered the contemplated bounty on this question, and am seeking a suitable way to cross-post to the Cognitive Sciences community. I gather that designing workable cross-posting on multiple SE communities remains something of an unsolved problem.

I took the plainest approach to cross-posting, as seen here.

• I'm thinking about the latter. Just updated Q to clarify; thanks. – David C. Norris Sep 7 '17 at 20:03
• This sounds a bit like trying to use CV to advance a philosophical agenda for science. The SE sites are supposed to be a resource of simple factual information in the form of Qs & As. I'm skeptical that this is an appropriate activity for the site. Imagine someone trying to encourage the posting of more answers advocating for Bayesian methods over frequentist ones, at best tangentially related to the question at issue, or analogously advocating for C# over java on Stack Overflow. – gung - Reinstate Monica Sep 7 '17 at 20:12
• That's an interesting perspective @gung. I'm thinking of the relationship between statistics and philosophy of science as something like that connecting programming with various programming paradigms. The spirit in which I'd be thinking of operating (to extend your analogy) would be something like promoting continuation-based or recursive solutions to algorithm design questions. That's not to negate your point, but to indicate the spirit of my intent. – David C. Norris Sep 7 '17 at 20:25
• @gung Some people are already doing that, rather aggressively, by posting the same answers (in various forms) all the time. We have tolerated that for years, mainly because despite the repetition they sometimes provide useful insights and perspectives. (You know who they are.) Why should using bounties towards the same end be viewed as a less appropriate approach? – whuber Sep 8 '17 at 22:44
• @whuber, let's stipulate that that has been occurring. It is still better not to take it one step further. – gung - Reinstate Monica Sep 9 '17 at 0:19
• @gung I do not understand how offering a bounty to request answers from a particular perspective represents a step "further": that seems like a milder thing to do than writing the answer oneself because (a) it's overt and (b) it opens the field up to anyone who would like to provide that kind of answer. – whuber Sep 9 '17 at 13:27