From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fringe science is, by definition, at the fringes of a mainstream academic discipline.^[1] Fringe science is a phrase used to describe scientific inquiry in an established field of study that departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories. While there are examples of mainstream scientists supporting maverick ideas within their own discipline of expertise, many fringe science ideas are advanced by individuals either from outside the field of science, or by scientists outside the mainstream of their own disciplines. Another use of the term is in describing fields of knowledge which are not, for lack of evidence or confirmability, recognized as bona fide sciences, though such fields are generally subsumed by the term pseudoscience.

Contents 1 Description 2 Contemporary examples 3 Historical examples 4 Comparisons 5 Controversies 6 See also 7 Notes 8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links

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. Mainstream science is likely to fail or make errors but broadly the field is in accord with accepted standards and its character of resistance to change forms a mark of sound judgment as a reaction.^[2] 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.^[3]) 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.^[4]

The categorical boundaries between fringe science and pseudoscience are widely disputed. Fringe science is seen by most scientists as rational but unlikely. Scientific consensus may delay the acceptance of valid fringe science for a variety of reasons, including incomplete or contradictory evidence.^[5] Fringe science can be a protoscience that is not yet accepted by the vast majority of scientists. A fringe scientist may make observations through the scientific method. Whether a fringe science is accepted by mainstream scientists has largely been based on the quality of the discoveries made by that science. The phrase "fringe science" is sometimes considered pejorative. For example, Lyell D. Henry, Jr. wrote that "'fringe science' [is] a term also suggesting kookiness."^[6] This belief may be inspired by eccentric, groundbreaking researchers on the fringe of science (colloquially known as mad scientists).

Cases belonging to the present include:

• Aubrey de Grey, featured in a 2006 60 Minutes special report, is working on advanced studies in human longevity.[2] Many mainstream scientists believe his research constitutes "fringe science."[3] 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."^[7]
• A nuclear fusion reaction called cold fusion occurring near room temperature and pressure was reported by Fleischmann and Pons in March 1989. Numerous research efforts at the time attempted and were unable to replicate these results.^[8] Since then, many scientists with a variety of credentials have contributed to the field or participated in the international conferences on cold fusion. In 2004, the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) decided to take another look at cold fusion to determine if their policies towards cold fusion should be altered due to new experimental evidence and so set up a panel on cold fusion.

Cases of historical note 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.
• Linus Pauling's belief that large amounts of vitamin C functioned as a panacea for a whole host of diseases, a claim that has largely been refuted.

Fringe science can be distinguished from some similar-sounding, but pejorative in nature, categories as follows:

• Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience is notoriously lax in rigorous application of the scientific method. Reproducibility is typically a problem. This is not so in fringe science.
• Junk science - 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.

Towards the end of the 20th century, religiously inspired critics of certain fields of scientific research attempted to brand as "controversial" a host of scientific fields which contradicted literal or fundamentalist readings of certain ancient religious texts,^{[citation needed]} taking ongoing scientific exploration on certain aspects of those topics as evidence that those findings were not conclusively valid.^{[dubious – discuss]} This was claimed to have left open a window for divine intervention and intelligent design.^{[citation needed]} Among these fields were paleo-anthropology, human sexuality, evolution, geology, and paleontology.^{[citation needed]}

However, such attempts are dismissed by epistemologists as being the result of a misunderstanding of the scientific process, understood by scientists to be akin to a dialogue which has no conclusion, despite the public's desire for ultimate winners and losers. As Dr. Donald E. Simanek, Physics professor at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania 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.^{[citation needed]}

The media also play a role in the creation and propagation of controversies and 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.

• Epistemology
• Protoscience
• List of protosciences
• List of minority-opinion scientific theories
• Pseudoscience
• List of pseudoscientific theories
• Scientific misconduct
• Obsolete scientific theory
• paradigm shift

• Friedlander, Micheal W. (February 1995). At the Fringes of Science. Boulder: Westview Press. ISBN 0813322006. 

• Controversial Science: From Content to Contention by Thomas Brante et al.
• Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science by Sharon Dunwoody et al.
• Friedlander, M. W. (1995). At the fringes of science. Boulder: Westview Press.
• Frazier K (1981). Paranormal Borderlands of Science Prometheus Books ISBN 0-87975-148-7
• CSICOP On-line: Scientifically Investigating Paranormal and Fringe Science Claims
• Dutch SI (1982). Notes on the Nature of Fringe Science. Journal of Geological Education
• Brown GE (1996). Environmental Science under Siege: Fringe Science and the 104th Congress.

• MC Mousseau, Parapsychology: Science or Pseudo-Science? Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2003. scientificexploration.org.
• C de Jager, Science, Fringe Science, and Pseudo-Science. RAS Quarterly Journal V. 31, NO. 1/Mar., 1990.
• Cooke, R. M. (1991). Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science. New York: Oxford University Press.
• SH Mauskopf, The Reception of Unconventional Science. Westview Press, 1979.
• Marcello Truzzi, The Perspective of Anomalistics. Anomalistics, Center for Scientific Anomalies Research.
• N. Ben-Yehuda, The politics and morality of deviance: moral panics, drug abuse, deviant science, and reversed stigmatization. SUNY series in deviance and social control. Albany: State University of New York Press 1990.

• The National Health Museum / Activities exchange: Teaching Controversial Science Issues Through Law Related Education