A recent post ("Is this hadith aunthentic? "...so seek treatment (of illness) but do not treat (illness) with anything that is haraam."") is asking a fairly concise question: Is such-and-such hadith authentic?
To the best of my knowledge, "authentic" has a very particular meaning in the hadith sciences; in order to be "authentic" a very strict set of criteria must be adhered to.
Currently, there's two answers: One cites an explicit claim about the authenticity as per the judgement of a known hadith scholar, and it currently only has one vote. The second (#25472), with three upvotes, provides absolutely no credible claims about the hadith's authenticity; despite that, it is currently the top-voted answer on the thread.
It does, however, quote a number of completely different ahadith from the one the questioner was actually asking about; but again there is absolutely no attempt to establish authenticity of those. But that's mostly irrelevant, since even if the general meaning of the matn is confirmed as reliable, that does not make the original hadith authentic.
Does this answer deserve to be representative of this site for a question of this nature? Does it provide any value for the academic study of Islam? As I see it, this post — as well as the votes it has garnered — demonstrate such a lack of understanding of the hadith sciences that it would only serve to further discredit this site in the eyes of actual experts.
Since it's been over a week, and absolutely nobody has presented an argument in its favor, it has now been deleted.