Fringe science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 140.252.83.232 (talk) at 23:21, 3 June 2011 (make clearer.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Science
Fields (Outline / List)
Intrascientific fields
Extrascientific fields
Scientific integrity
Instruments
This is a subseries on philosophy. In order to explore related topics, please visit navigation.

Fringe science is inquiry in an established scientific field of study that departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is not supported by the preponderance of credible mainstream academic sources. Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe concepts as highly speculative or even strongly refuted.[1]

Fringe science can include the continued interest by a minority of individuals in a particular concept that was once tolerated or accepted by the mainstream scientific community, but evidence subsequently showed the concept to be falsified, incorrect, or otherwise inconsistent with reality. Conversely, fringe science can include novel proposals and interpretations that initially have only a few supporters and much opposition. Such new ideas can themselves become mainstream and cease to be "fringe science" when evidence and theoretical explanations are found that support the idea. The scientific method allows for new ideas to become mainstream understanding when the collective scientific evidence supports them, as well as rejecting established ideas when the collective scientific evidence opposes them.[2][3][4]

The term fringe science is sometimes loosely used to describe fields that are actually pseudosciences, or fields which are referred to as sciences, but entirely lack scientific rigor or plausibility. Related pejorative terms used by scientists and skeptics include "pathological science", "voodoo science", and "cargo cult science" — labels that suggest a lack of scientific integrity. In politics, the term "junk science" has been used to describe agenda-driven political propaganda that is claimed to be scientifically supported but is instead not supported by the scientific evidence. In the philosophy of science, the problem of where to properly draw a boundary between science and non-science is called the demarcation problem.

Description

Traditionally, the term fringe science is used to describe unusual theories and models of discovery that have their basis in established scientific principle. Such theories may be advocated by a scientist who is recognized by the larger scientific community (typically due to publication of peer reviewed studies by the scientist), but this is not always the case. Despite notable instances of exploiting errors in mainstream science, a fringe science is normally in accord with accepted standards. Through careful use of the scientific method, including falsificationism, the scientific community comes to accept some fringe sciences.[5]

Some of today's widely-held theories (such as plate tectonics) had their origins as fringe science, and were held in a negative opinion for decades.[6] 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.[7]

The categorical boundaries between fringe science and pseudoscience are often disputed. Fringe science is seen by most scientists as rational, but unlikely. A valid fringe science may avoid recognition by a scientific consensus for a variety of reasons, including incomplete or contradictory evidence.[8] Fringe sciences are thus potential protosciences.

The phrase "fringe science" is sometimes considered pejorative. For example, Lyell D. Henry, Jr. wrote that "'fringe science' [is] a term also suggesting kookiness."[9] This belief may be inspired by eccentric, groundbreaking researchers on the fringe of science (colloquially known as mad scientists).[10]

Comparisons

Fringe science can be distinguished from other controversial fields of study as follows:

  • A Pseudoscience is notably lacking in rigorous application of the scientific method, and reproducibility is typically a problem. This is not so in fringe science.
  • The term junk science is used to describe agenda-driven research that ignores certain standard methodologies and practices in an attempt to secure a given result from an experiment. Fringe science, as in standard methodology, proceeds from theory to conclusion with no attempt to direct or coax the result.

Examples

Historical

Some theories that were eventually refuted 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. However, later questioning of Reich's mental health and scientific rigour at the time might place orgone among the pseudo sciences rather than among fringe sciences.
  • Focal infection theory as a primary cause of systemic disease rapidly became mainstream after WWI largely to what later turned out fundamentally flawed studies providing evidence supporting the theory: "millions of tonsils and teeth were removed in what was later described as an 'orgy of extractions.'"[11]. This particular aspect of FIT started falling out of favor in the 1930s and was relegated to the fringe of oral medicine by the late 1950s.

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.[12] Many mainstream scientists[who?] 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".
    • De Grey 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".[13]
  • 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.[14] 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 if their policies towards the subject should be altered due to 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 which 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 after the publication in 1999 of The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold. Gold's version of the hypothesis partly is 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,"[15] 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.[16]

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,[17] although the history of science shows that scientific progress is often marked by interdisciplinary and multicultural interaction.[18] 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".[19] The general public has difficulty distinguishing between "science and its imitators",[19] and in some cases a "yearning to believe or a generalized suspicion of experts is a very potent incentive to accepting pseudoscientific claims".[20]

Controversies

Towards the end of the 20th century, religiously-inspired critics cited fringe science theories with limited support, or else junk science. The goal was frequently to classify as "controversial" entire fields of scientific inquiry (notably paleo-anthropology, human sexuality, evolution, geology, and paleontology) that contradicted literal or fundamentalist interpretation of various sacred texts. Describing ongoing debate and research within these fields as evidence of fundamental weaknesses or flaws, these critics argued that "controversies" left open a window for the plausibility of divine intervention and intelligent design.[21][22][23] As Donald E. Simanek asserts, "Too often speculative and tentative hypotheses of cutting edge science are treated as if they were scientific truths, and so accepted by a public eager for answers," ignorant of the fact that "As science progresses from ignorance to understanding it must pass through a transitionary phase of confusion and uncertainty."[24] The media also play a role in the creation and propagation of the view that certain fields of science are "controversial". In "Optimising public understanding of science: A comparative perspective" by Jan Nolin et al., the authors claim that "From a media perspective it is evident that controversial science sells, not only because of its dramatic value but also since it is often connected to high-stake societal issues."[25]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Dutch, Steven I (January 1982). "Notes on the nature of fringe science". J Geol Ed. 30 (1): 6–13. ISSN 0022-1368. OCLC 427103550. ERIC EJ260409. (ed. Identifies three classifications of scientific ideas (center, frontier, fringe) and defines fringe as a region where ideas are highly speculative or strongly refuted.)
  2. ^ Bell, David, 2005, Science, Technology and Culture, Open University Press, p. 134, ISBN 978-0335213269
  3. ^ Conklin, Wendy (2005) Mysteries in History: Ancient History Page 39
  4. ^ Hunt, Patrick (2007) Ten Discoveries That Rewrote History
  5. ^ Friedlander, p. 172.
  6. ^ Friedlander, p. 5.
  7. ^ Friedlander, p. 161.
  8. ^ Friedlander, p. 183.
  9. ^ Henry Lyell D. (1981). "Unorthodox science as a popular activity". J Am Culture. 4 (2): 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1542-734X.1981.0402_1.x.
  10. ^ Runco, Mark A; Pritzker, Steven R (1999). Encyclopedia of Creativity. Vol. i–z. p. 10. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) [verification needed]
  11. ^ Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal"
  12. ^ "The quest for immortality: Want to live 500 years? One scientist says it may be possible one day". CBS News. 2005-12-28.
  13. ^ Pontin, Jason (2006-07-11). "Is defeating aging only a dream?". Technology Review. (includes June 9, 2006 critiques and rebuttals)
  14. ^ "A report from the American Physical Society spring meeting - 1–2 May 1989 Baltimore, MD Special session on cold fusion". Retrieved 2009-04-14.
  15. ^ Friedlander, p. 174.
  16. ^ Friedlander, p. 178-9.
  17. ^ Friedlander, Michael W. At the Fringes of Science. OCLC 42309381.p. 58[verification needed]
  18. ^ Isaac Asimov (1980). Left Hand of the Electron. Bantam Books. ISBN 9780440947172.
  19. ^ a b Friedlander, p. 173.
  20. ^ Friedlander, p. 176.
  21. ^ "The dangers of creationism in education". Council of Europe. 2008-03-31.
  22. ^ "The Wedge" (PDF). Discovery Institute. 1999.
  23. ^ "[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]". {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help): Amicus curiae brief of 72 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations in support of appellees in 482 U.S. 578 (1987)
  24. ^ Simanek, Donald. "Cutting edge science". Archived from the original on 2008-03-19. Retrieved 2008-04-01.
  25. ^ Nolin, Jan; et al. "Optimising public understanding of science: A comparative perspective" (PDF). p. 632. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

References

  • Brante Thomas; Fuller Steve; Lynch William (1993). Controversial science: from content to contention. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. OCLC 26096166.
  • Brown George E Jr (23 October 1996). Environmental science under siege : fringe science and the 104th Congress. Washington, DC: Democratic Caucus of the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives. OCLC 57343997.
  • ed. by Sharon M. Friedman .... (1998). Friedman Sharon M; Dunwoody Sharon; Rogers Carol L (eds.). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, New Jersey; London: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN 0805827277. OCLC 263560777. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  • Dutch Steven I (January 1982). "Notes on the nature of fringe science". J Geol Ed. 30 (1): 6–13. ISSN 0022-1368. OCLC 92686827.
  • Frazier Kendrick (1981). Paranormal borderlands of science. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879751487. OCLC 251487947.
  • Friedlander Michael W (1995). At the fringes of science. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 0813322006. OCLC 31046052. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Further reading

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fringe_science&oldid=432436171"