Editing Fringe science (section)

{{Short description|Inquiries far outside of mainstream science}}
{{Paranormal}}
'''Fringe science''' refers to ideas whose attributes include being highly speculative or relying on premises already [[Objection (argument)|refuted]].<ref>{{cite journal |author=Dutch, Steven I |title=Notes on the nature of fringe science |journal= Journal of Geological Education|issn=0022-1368 |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=6–13 |date=January 1982 |id=ERIC EJ260409 |oclc=427103550|doi=10.5408/0022-1368-30.1.6 |bibcode=1982JGeoE..30....6D }}</ref> The chance of ideas rejected by editors and published outside the mainstream being correct is remote.<ref name=Fried95>{{cite book|author=Friedlander, Michael W. |title=At the Fringes of Science |year=1995 |oclc=42309381}}</ref>{{rp|58}}<ref>{{cite book |author-link=Isaac Asimov |author=Isaac Asimov |title=Left Hand of the Electron|publisher=[[Bantam Books]] |year=1980 |isbn=978-0-440-94717-2}}</ref> When the [[general public]] does not distinguish between science and imitators, it risks exploitation,{{r|Fried95|p=173}} and in some cases, a "yearning to believe or a generalized suspicion of experts is a very potent incentive to accepting some pseudoscientific claims".{{r|Fried95|p=176}}

The term "fringe science" covers everything from novel [[hypotheses]], which can be tested utilizing the [[scientific method]], to wild [[ad hoc hypotheses]] and [[Mumbo jumbo (phrase)|mumbo jumbo]]. This has resulted in a tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of [[Pseudoscience|pseudoscientists]], [[hobbyists]], and [[Quackery|quacks]].<ref>{{cite journal |author=David Bell |title=Secret science |journal=Science and Public Policy |date=December 1999 |volume=26 |issue=6 |page=450 |doi=10.1093/spp/26.6.450 }}</ref>

A concept that was once accepted by the mainstream [[scientific community]] may become fringe science because of a later evaluation of previous research.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/revsalud/beyerstein_cience_vs_pseudoscience.pdf|title=Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience|last=Beyerstein|first=Barry L.|date=July 1995|website=INFOMED - Red de Salud de Cuba}}</ref> 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 a lack of evidence.