From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are differing definitions of fringe science. Fringe science may be valid science which is not considered mainstream. Alternatively, it may be a questionable scientific approach to a field of study. In any case, it is an inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from the mainstream theory in that field.
Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe ideas as highly speculative or even as actually refuted.[1]
The term "fringe science" covers everything from novel hypotheses which can be tested by means of the scientific method to wild ad hoc hypotheses and New Age mumbo jumbo (mostly the latter). This has resulted in a tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of pseudoscientists, hobbyists, and cranks.[2]
Other terms used for the specific areas of fringe science are pathological science, voodoo science, and cargo cult science. Junk science is a term typically used in the political arena to describe ideas considered to be dubious or fraudulent.
A concept that was once accepted by the mainstream scientific community may become fringe science because of a later evaluation of previous research. For example, focal infection theory, which held that focal infections of the tonsils or teeth are a primary cause of systemic disease, was once considered to be medical fact. It has since been dismissed because of lack of evidence.
Some theories that were once rejected as fringe science, but were eventually accepted as mainstream science, are:
Though there are examples of mainstream scientists supporting maverick ideas within their own discipline of expertise, fringe science theories and ideas are often advanced by individuals either without a traditional academic science background, or by researchers outside the mainstream discipline,[25] although the history of science shows that scientific progress is often marked by interdisciplinary and multicultural interaction.[26] Friedlander suggests that fringe science is necessary for mainstream science "not to atrophy", as scientists must evaluate the plausibility of each new fringe claim and certain fringe discoveries "will later graduate into the ranks of accepted" while others "will never receive confirmation".[27] The general public has difficulty distinguishing between "science and its imitators",[27] and in some cases a "yearning to believe or a generalized suspicion of experts is a very potent incentive to accepting pseudoscientific claims".[28]
Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe ideas as highly speculative or even as actually refuted.[1]
The term "fringe science" covers everything from novel hypotheses which can be tested by means of the scientific method to wild ad hoc hypotheses and New Age mumbo jumbo (mostly the latter). This has resulted in a tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of pseudoscientists, hobbyists, and cranks.[2]
Other terms used for the specific areas of fringe science are pathological science, voodoo science, and cargo cult science. Junk science is a term typically used in the political arena to describe ideas considered to be dubious or fraudulent.
A concept that was once accepted by the mainstream scientific community may become fringe science because of a later evaluation of previous research. For example, focal infection theory, which held that focal infections of the tonsils or teeth are a primary cause of systemic disease, was once considered to be medical fact. It has since been dismissed because of lack of evidence.
Some theories that were once rejected as fringe science, but were eventually accepted as mainstream science, are:
- continental drift[3][4]
- the existence of Troy[5][6]
- heliocentrism[7]
- Norse colonization of the Americas
- the Big Bang theory[8]
Description
Fringe science is used to describe unusual theories and models of discovery. Those who develop such fringe science ideas may work within the scientific method, but their results are not accepted by the mainstream community. Usually the evidence provided by supporters of a fringe science is believed only by a minority and rejected by most experts. Fringe science may be advocated by a scientist who has a degree of recognition by the larger scientific community (typically through the publication of peer reviewed studies by the scientist), but this is not always the case. While most fringe science views are ignored or rejected, through careful use of the scientific method, including falsificationism, the scientific community has come to accept some ideas from fringe sciences.[9] One example of such is plate tectonics, an idea that had its origin as a fringe science of continental drift, and was held in a negative opinion for decades.[10] It is noted that:- The confusion between science and pseudoscience, between honest scientific error and genuine scientific discovery, is not new, and it is a permanent feature of the scientific landscape [...] Acceptance of new science can come slowly.[11]
Examples
Historical
Some historical ideas that are considered refuted by mainstream science include:- Wilhelm Reich's work with orgone, a physical energy he claimed to have discovered, contributed to his alienation from the psychiatric community and eventually to his jailing. At the time and continuing today, other scientists and skeptics disputed Reich's claims that he had scientific evidence for the existence of orgone. Nevertheless, dedicated amateurs and a few fringe researchers continue to believe that Reich was correct.[citation needed]
- Focal infection theory as a primary cause of systemic disease rapidly became accepted by mainstream dentistry and medicine after World War I, largely on the basis of what later turned out to be fundamentally flawed studies providing evidence to support the theory. As a result millions of people were subjected to needless dental extractions and surgeries.[15] While certain mainstream study continues on certain aspects of FIT, the original approach and science of FIT started falling out of favor in the 1930s and was relegated to the fringe of oral medicine by the late 1950s.
- Clovis First theory: The idea that the Clovis was the first culture in North America was long regarded as mainstream until mounting evidence of pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas discredited it.[16][17][18]
Contemporary
Relatively recent fringe sciences include:- Aubrey de Grey, featured in a 2006 60 Minutes special report, is working on advanced studies in human longevity,[19] dubbed "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence" (SENS). Many mainstream scientists[20] believe that his research, especially de Grey's view on the importance of nuclear (epi)mutations and his purported timeline for antiaging therapeutics, constitutes "fringe science".
- Technology Review controversy: In an article released in a 2006 issue of the magazine Technology Review (part of a larger series), it was written that "SENS De Grey's hypothesis is highly speculative. Many of its proposals have not been reproduced, nor could they be reproduced with today's scientific knowledge and technology. Echoing Myhrvold, we might charitably say that de Grey's proposals exist in a kind of antechamber of science, where they wait (possibly in vain) for independent verification. SENS does not compel the assent of many knowledgeable scientists; but neither is it demonstrably wrong".[21]
- A nuclear fusion reaction called cold fusion occurring near room temperature and pressure was reported by chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in March 1989. Numerous research efforts at the time were unable to replicate these results.[22] Subsequently, a number of scientists with a variety of credentials have worked on the problem or participated in international conferences on cold fusion. In 2004, the United States Department of Energy decided to take another look at cold fusion to determine whether their policies towards the subject should be altered because of new experimental evidence, and commissioned a panel on cold fusion.
- The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin holds that natural petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. The ubiquity of hydrocarbons in the solar system is taken as evidence that there may be a great deal more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the mantle. Abiogenic hypotheses saw a revival in the last half of the twentieth century by Russian and Ukrainian scientists, and more interest has been generated in the West[citation needed] after the publication by Thomas Gold in 1999 of The Deep Hot Biosphere. Gold's version of the hypothesis is partly based on the existence of a biosphere composed of thermophile bacteria in the Earth's crust, which may explain the existence of certain biomarkers in extracted petroleum.
Responding to fringe science
Michael W. Friedlander suggests some guidelines for responding to fringe science, which he argues is a more difficult problem to handle, "at least procedurally",[23] than scientific misconduct. His suggested methods include impeccable accuracy, checking cited sources, not overstating orthodox science, thorough understanding of the Wegener continental drift example, examples of orthodox science investigating radical proposals, and prepared examples of errors from fringe scientists.[24]Though there are examples of mainstream scientists supporting maverick ideas within their own discipline of expertise, fringe science theories and ideas are often advanced by individuals either without a traditional academic science background, or by researchers outside the mainstream discipline,[25] although the history of science shows that scientific progress is often marked by interdisciplinary and multicultural interaction.[26] Friedlander suggests that fringe science is necessary for mainstream science "not to atrophy", as scientists must evaluate the plausibility of each new fringe claim and certain fringe discoveries "will later graduate into the ranks of accepted" while others "will never receive confirmation".[27] The general public has difficulty distinguishing between "science and its imitators",[27] and in some cases a "yearning to believe or a generalized suspicion of experts is a very potent incentive to accepting pseudoscientific claims".[28]
