"These articles are in opposition." + "prove Jeff Atwood" suggest that OP already knows the answer.
Atwood trashed Norvig. If you know the answer, why ask? That means, unclear what you're asking, which was my close vote ("opinion-based" shown to readers is pure fake indiscriminately attributed to me due to... shall we say, not too smart user interface - a bit more on that below...).
In a "clean room" case, I would shrug, edit this unfortunate phrase into something like "These articles appear at odds with each other, how can I find a way out?" and walk away knowing that unclear doesn't apply anymore.
Unfortunately, at the moment question has been "locked" from such an edit by already submitted FGITW answer: "You're missing the point..."
Besides above, there are a few issues induced by the phrase "Is there a friggin' scientific evidence to prove the Jeff Atwood approach?"
► Is-there part of the phrase shifts it into Yes/No territory with all its known issues:
Stack Overflow is not just a 'get an answer for me' place, it's "Produce quality content that is useful for people who follow". In the case of your question, the second part is lacking...
When asking a yes/no question there are one of two possibilities:
- You really want a yes/no answer. If this is the case, and you don't need anything else to answer your question then it means the answers will be inherently low quality. An answer that only says "Yes" or "No" (in addition to not meeting the minimum length) would be of very low quality. SO answers expect more.
- You don't actually want a yes/no answer, in which case your real question is not actually a yes/no question, and you're hoping that people will determine what your real question is. For example, someone might ask, "Can I do [...]?" when what they really meant to ask was, "How can I do [...]?"
Almost all yes/no questions I've seen fall into case 2; they should be edited into a question that isn't really asking for just a yes/no, it should be asking to explain something. (Even if it has a yes/no in there somewhere.) Note that just adding "Explain" at the end isn't really a good way to go about this; you should refactor the question on a more fundamental level...
► The part "evidence to prove the Jeff Atwood approach" sucks, well, because it blatantly misses the opposite: "evidence to prove the Peter Norvig approach". This is yet another indication of question quality issues (happily ignored by reopeners).
At the very least, I would rephrase to symmetric wording "evidence to prove one of these approaches above another".
► Issues with "scientific" part are addressed in "Scientific Evidence" versions of each question
I for one like the way these are presented in this comment:
Slapping a request for scientific literature onto the question... doesn't really make this question any better. It still is enormously vague and unanswerable, there is no objective scientific measure..., it remains a question that should be nuked on sight.
Above does not fully apply to this particular case because there is an answerable question obscured by scientificevidence garbage there, but it rather makes a point that it would be better to wipe out that scevidence crap outta there at all (if such an edit wouldn't invalidate existing answers).
The last but not the least, even with all imaginary editing cleanup, the question would still remain average.
Don't get me wrong, resolving false contradictions can be fun, I sometimes enjoy doing this myself but it's often way too simple. And this case looks simple to me.
As Mysticial would probably say, it's not really advanced question. Meh.
Side note, regarding question closure notice, I would rather prefer it to be shown rephrased to something that doesn't put words in my mouth. There is a bunch of feature requests for something like that at MSO, but SE team doesn't give a shit.
