Editing Fringe science

{{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.

==Description==
The boundary between fringe science and [[pseudoscience]] is disputed. Friedlander writes that there is no widespread understanding of what separates science from nonscience or pseudoscience.{{r|Fried95|p=183}} Pseudoscience, however, is something that is not [[Science|scientific]] but is incorrectly characterised as science.

The term may be considered [[pejorative]]. For example, Lyell D. Henry Jr. wrote, "Fringe science [is] a term also suggesting kookiness."<ref>{{cite journal |author=Henry Lyell D. |year=1981 |title=Unorthodox science as a popular activity |journal=[[The Journal of American Culture]] |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=1–22 |doi=10.1111/j.1542-734X.1981.0402_1.x}}</ref>

[[Continental drift]] was rejected for decades lacking conclusive evidence before [[plate tectonics]] was accepted.{{r|Fried95|p=5}}

{{Quotation|text=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.{{r|Fried95|p=161}}}}

==Examples==
===Historical===
Some historical ideas that are considered to have been refuted by mainstream science are:

*[[Wilhelm Reich]]'s work with [[orgone]], a physical energy he claimed to have discovered, contributed to his alienation from the psychiatric community. He was eventually sentenced to two years in a federal prison, where he died.<ref name="NYTOrgon">{{cite web | url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F06E4DD1639E33BBC4A52DFB566838C649EDE | title=Two Scientists Jailed; Pair Sentenced in Maine in Sale of 'Accumulators' | work=The New York Times | date=12 March 1957 | access-date=31 March 2015}}</ref> At that time and continuing today, scientists disputed his claim that he had scientific evidence for the existence of orgone.<ref name="EncyclopediaofPseudoscienceOrgon">{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_XpEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT1040 | title=Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy | publisher=Facts on File | author=Williams, William F. | year=2000 | pages=36, 55, 68, 248–249, 298–299 | isbn=081603351X}}</ref><ref name="PseudoscienceWarsOrgon">{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SqOPw9Yq-MEC&q=orgone+pseudoscience&pg=PA158 | title=The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe | publisher=University of Chicago Press | author=Gordin, Michael D. | year=2012 | pages=158–159 | isbn=978-0226101729}}</ref> Nevertheless, amateurs and a few fringe researchers continued to believe that orgone is real.<ref name="SRMHPOrgone">{{cite journal | url=http://www.srmhp.org/0401/orgone-therapy.html | title=THE RESURRECTION OF WILHELM REICH AND ORGONE THERAPY | author=Klee, Gerald D. | journal=The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice | year=2005 |volume=4 | issue=1}}</ref><ref name="WiredOrgone">{{cite magazine | url=https://www.wired.com/2014/11/fantastically-wrong-wilhelm-reich/ | title=Fantastically Wrong: Why Is the Sky Blue? It's Packed With Sexy Energy, of Course | magazine=Wired | date=26 November 2014 | access-date=31 March 2015 | author=Simon, Matt}}</ref><ref name="Zephyr">{{cite web | url=http://www.zephyrtechnology.com/html/orgone_energy.html | title=Orgone Energy | publisher=Zephyr Technology | access-date=31 March 2015 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170713132125/http://www.zephyrtechnology.com/html/orgone_energy.html | archive-date=13 July 2017 | url-status=dead }}</ref>
*[[Focal infection theory]] (FIT), as the primary cause of systemic disease, rapidly became accepted by mainstream dentistry and medicine after World War I. This acceptance was largely based upon what later turned out to be fundamentally flawed studies. As a result, millions of people were subjected to needless [[dental extraction]]s and surgeries.<ref name="FITPaper">{{cite journal | title=The focal infection theory: appraisal and reappraisal. | author=Pallasch, TJ | journal=Journal of the California Dental Association |date=March 2000  | volume=28 | issue=3 | pages=194–200 | doi=10.1080/19424396.2000.12223068 | pmid=11326533| s2cid=42277199 }}</ref> The original studies supporting FIT began falling out of favor in the 1930s. By the late 1950s, it was regarded as a [[fringe theory]].
*The [[Clovis culture|Clovis First]] theory held that the Clovis culture was the first culture in North America. It was long regarded as a mainstream theory until mounting evidence of a pre-Clovis culture discredited it.<ref>Whitley, David S. (2009) ''Cave paintings and the human spirit'' p. 98</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Waters|first=Michael|s2cid=206531951 <!--coauthors=Forman, Steven; Jennings, Thomas; Nordt, Lee; Driese, Steven, Feinberg, Joshua; Keene, Joshua; Halligan, Jessi; Lindquist, Anna; PIerson, James; Hallmark, Charles; Collins, Michael; Wiederhold, James-->|title=The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas |journal=Science |date=25 March 2011|volume=331 |issue=6024 |pages=1599–1603 |doi=10.1126/science.1201855 |pmid=21436451|bibcode = 2011Sci...331.1599W }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Wilford|first=John|title=Arrowheads Found in Texas Dial Back Arrival of Humans in America|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/science/25archeo.html?pagewanted=all|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=2011-03-27|date=2011-03-24}}</ref>

===Modern===
Relatively recent fringe sciences include:

* [[Aubrey de Grey]], featured in a 2006 ''[[60 Minutes]]'' special report, is studying human [[longevity]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-quest-for-immortality/ |title=The quest for immortality: Want to live 500 years? One scientist says it may be possible one day |work=CBS News |date=2005-12-28}}</ref> He calls his work "[[strategies for engineered negligible senescence]]" (SENS). Many mainstream scientists<ref>{{Cite journal | first1=H. |last1=Warner | first2=J. |last2=Anderson | first3=S. |last3=Austad | first4=E. |last4=Bergamini | first5=D. |last5=Bredesen | first6=R. |last6=Butler | first7=B. A. |last7=Carnes | first8=B. F. C. |last8=Clark | first9=V. |last9=Cristofalo | first10=J. |last10=Faulkner | first11=L. |last11=Guarente | first12=D. E. |last12=Harrison | first13=T. |last13=Kirkwood | first14=G. |last14=Lithgow | first15=G. |last15=Martin | first16=E. |last16=Masoro | first17=S. |last17=Melov | first18=R. A. |last18=Miller | first19=S. J. |last19=Olshansky | first20=L. |last20=Partridge | first21=O. |last21=Pereira-Smith | first22=T. |last22=Perls | first23=A. |last23=Richardson | first24=J. |last24=Smith | first25=T. |last25=Von Zglinicki | first26=E. |last26=Wang | first27=J. Y. |last27=Wei | first28=T. F. |last28=Williams|title=Science fact and the SENS agenda. What can we reasonably expect from ageing research?|journal=EMBO Reports|volume=6|issue=11|pages=1006–1008| date=Nov 2005 |issn=1469-221X|pmid=16264422|pmc=1371037|doi=10.1038/sj.embor.7400555}}</ref> believe his research is fringe science (especially his view of the importance of nuclear [[Epigenetics|epimutations]] and his timeline for antiaging [[Therapy|therapeutics]]). In a 2005 article in ''[[Strategies for engineered negligible senescence#Technology Review contest|Technology Review]]'' (part of a larger series), it was stated that "SENS is highly speculative. Many of its proposals have not been reproduced, nor could they be reproduced with today's scientific knowledge and technology. Echoing [[Nathan Myhrvold|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."<ref>{{cite news |first=Jason |last=Pontin |title=Is defeating aging only a dream? |date=2006-07-11 |work=Technology Review |url=http://www.technologyreview.com/sens/ |access-date=2007-04-25 |archive-date=2012-09-11 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120911155923/http://www.technologyreview.com/sens/ |url-status=dead }} ''(includes June 9, 2006 critiques and rebuttals)''</ref>
* A nuclear fusion reaction called [[cold fusion]], which occurs 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 their results.<ref>{{cite web |title=A report from the American Physical Society spring meeting – 1–2 May 1989 Baltimore, MD Special session on cold fusion |url=http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate/aps.ascii |access-date=2009-04-14}}</ref> Subsequently, several scientists have worked on cold fusion or have participated in international conferences on it. In 2004, the United States Department of Energy commissioned a panel on cold fusion to reexamine the concept. They wanted to determine whether their policies should be altered because of new evidence.
*The theory of [[abiogenic petroleum origin]] holds that [[petroleum]] was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. The ubiquity of hydrocarbons in the [[Solar System]] may be evidence that there may be more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the Earth's mantle. Abiogenic hypotheses saw a revival in the last half of the twentieth century by Russian and Ukrainian scientists. More interest was generated in the West after the 1999 publication by [[Thomas Gold]] of ''[[Thomas Gold#The Deep Hot Biosphere|The Deep Hot Biosphere]]{{Broken anchor|date=2024-09-15|bot=User:Cewbot/log/20201008/configuration|target_link=Thomas Gold#The Deep Hot Biosphere|reason= The anchor (The Deep Hot Biosphere) [[Special:Diff/1227062941|has been deleted]].}}''. Gold's version of the theory is partly based on the existence of a [[biosphere]] composed of [[thermophile]] bacteria in the Earth's crust, which might explain the existence of specific biomarkers in extracted petroleum.

===Accepted as mainstream===
Some theories that were once rejected as fringe science but were eventually accepted as mainstream science include:

* [[Plate tectonics]]<ref>Bell, David, 2005, ''Science, Technology and Culture'', Open University Press, p. 134, {{ISBN|978-0-335-21326-9}}</ref><ref>[[Naomi Oreskes|Oreskes, Naomi]] (2003), ''Plate tectonics: an insider's history of the modern theory of the Earth'' p. 72</ref>
* The existence of [[Troy]]<ref>Conklin, Wendy (2005) ''Mysteries in History: Ancient History'' p. 39</ref><ref>Hunt, Patrick (2007) ''Ten Discoveries That Rewrote History''</ref>
* [[Heliocentrism]]<ref>JDobrzycki J Editor (1973) ''The reception of Copernicus' heliocentric theory'' p. 311</ref>
* [[Norse colonization of the Americas]]<!--{{citation needed|date=July 2016}} No - the main article has 45 references -->
* The [[Big Bang]] theory<ref>Lemonick, Michael D. (2003) ''Echo of the Big Bang'' Princeton University Press p. 7</ref>
*''[[Helicobacter pylori]]'' bacteria as the causative agent of [[peptic ulcer disease]]<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|page=17|website=www.sld.cu|access-date=27 September 2017}}</ref>
*The [[germ theory of disease]]<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_Uq9AAAAQBAJ&q=%22germ+theory%22+fringe+mainstream&pg=PA40|title=An Epidemic of Absence: A New Way of Understanding Allergies and Autoimmune Diseases|last=Velasquez-Manoff|first=Moises|year=2013|publisher=Simon and Schuster|page=40|access-date=27 September 2017|isbn=9781439199398}}</ref>
*[[Neanderthal#Interbreeding with Denisovans|Neanderthal-Homo sapiens hybridization]]

==Responding to fringe science==
[[Michael W. Friedlander]] has suggested some guidelines for responding to fringe science, which, he argues, is a more difficult problem{{r|Fried95|p=174}} 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.{{r|Fried95|p=178-9}}

Friedlander suggests that fringe science is necessary so mainstream science will not atrophy. 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".{{r|Fried95|p=173}}

[[Margaret Wertheim]] profiled many "outsider scientists" in her book ''Physics on the Fringe'', who receive little or no attention from professional scientists. She describes all of them as trying to make sense of the world using the scientific method but in the face of being unable to understand modern science's complex theories. She also finds it fair that credentialed scientists do not bother spending a lot of time learning about and explaining problems with the fringe theories of uncredentialed scientists since the authors of those theories have not taken the time to understand the mainstream theories they aim to disprove.<ref>[http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/77/510036/143369581/KERA_143369581.mp3 NPR Podcast]</ref>

===Controversies===
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." However, the public is ignorant that "As science progresses from ignorance to understanding it must pass through a transitional phase of confusion and uncertainty."<ref name='Simanek'>{{cite web |url=http://alcor.concordia.ca/~vpetkov/links4.htm#cutting |title=Cutting edge science |access-date=2008-04-01 |last=Simanek |first=Donald |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080319110815/http://alcor.concordia.ca/~vpetkov/links4.htm#cutting <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = 2008-03-19}}</ref>

The media also play a role in propagating the belief that certain fields of science are controversial. In their 2003 paper "Optimising Public Understanding of Science and Technology in Europe: A Comparative Perspective", Jan Nolin ''et al.'' write 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."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.univie.ac.at/virusss/opus/OPUS%20Report%20Final.pdf |page=632 |author=Nolin, Jan |title=Optimising public understanding of science: A comparative perspective |display-authors=etal |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080912101731/http://www.univie.ac.at/virusss/opus/OPUS%20Report%20Final.pdf |archive-date=2008-09-12 }}</ref>

==See also==
{{columns-list|colwidth=35em|
* {{annotated link|Cargo cult science}}
* {{annotated link|Epistemology}}
* {{annotated link|Fringe theory}}
* {{annotated link|Homeopathy}}
* ''{{annotated link|Journal of Scientific Exploration}}''
* {{annotated link|Junk science}}
* {{annotated link|List of fringe science organizations}}
* {{annotated link|List of topics characterized as pseudoscience}}
* {{annotated link|Paradigm shift}}
* {{annotated link|Pathological science}}
* {{annotated link|Science, technology and society}} (STS)
* {{annotated link|Scientific misconduct}}
* {{annotated link|Sociology of scientific knowledge}} (SSK)
* {{annotated link|Superseded scientific theories}}
* {{annotated link|Transhumanism}}
* {{annotated link|Voodoo science}}
}}

; Books
* ''[[13 Things That Don't Make Sense]]'' (a book by Michael Brooks)
* ''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'' (a book by Thomas S. Kuhn)

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Bibliography==
* {{cite book
 |author=Ben-Yehuda, Nachman
 |title=The politics and morality of deviance: moral panics, drug abuse, deviant science, and reversed stigmatization
 |url=https://archive.org/details/politicsmorality0000beny
 |url-access=registration
 |series=SUNY series in deviance and social control
 |place=Albany
 |publisher=State University of New York Press
 |year=1990
 |oclc=19128625
 |author-link=Nachman Ben-Yehuda }}
* {{cite book
 |author1=Brante, Thomas
 |author2=Fuller, Steve
 |author3=Lynch, William
 |title=Controversial science: from content to contention
 |oclc=26096166
 |year=1993
 |publisher=State University of New York Press
 |place=Albany, New York }}
* {{cite book
 |author=Brooks, M.
 |year=2008
 |oclc=213480209
 |title=13 Things That Don't Make Sense
 |place=New York
 |publisher=Doubleday
 |author-link=Michael Brooks (science writer)
|title-link=13 Things That Don't Make Sense
 }}
**{{cite news |author=Michael Brooks |author-mask=2 |title=Why science doesn't make sense |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5081751/Why-science-doesnt-make-sense.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090404032624/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5081751/Why-science-doesnt-make-sense.html |archive-date=2009-04-04 |newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date=31 March 2009 |access-date=2 April 2009}}
* {{cite book
 |author=Brown, George E. Jr.
 |date=23 October 1996
 |title=Environmental science under siege: fringe science and the 104th Congress
 |oclc=57343997
 |place=Washington, D.C.
 |publisher=Democratic Caucus of the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives }}
* {{cite book
 |author=Cooke, R. M.
 |year=1991
 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4taZBr_nvBgC
 |title=Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science
 |place=New York
 |publisher=Oxford University Press
 |isbn=0-19-506465-8
 |oclc=22710786 }}
* [http://www.csicop.org/ CSICOP On-line: Scientifically Investigating Paranormal and Fringe Science Claims] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140316042105/http://www.csicop.org/ |date=2014-03-16 }}—Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
* {{cite journal
 |author=de Jager, Cornelis
 |title=Science, fringe science and pseudo-science
 |journal=Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society
 |issn=0035-8738
 |volume=31
 |issue=1
 |date=March 1990
 |pages=31–45
 |bibcode=1990QJRAS..31...31D}}
* {{cite journal
 |author=Dutch, Steven I.
 |title=Notes on the nature of fringe science
 |journal= Journal of Geological Education
 |volume=30
 |issue=1
 |pages=6–13
 |date=January 1982
 |oclc=92686827
 |issn=0022-1368 |doi=10.5408/0022-1368-30.1.6
 |bibcode=1982JGeoE..30....6D
 }}
* {{cite book
 |author=Frazier, Kendrick
 |year=1981
 |title=Paranormal borderlands of science
 |place=Buffalo, New York
 |publisher=Prometheus Books
 |oclc=251487947
 |isbn=0-87975-148-7 }}
* {{cite book
 |author=Friedlander, Michael W.
 |author-link=Michael W. Friedlander
 |title=At the Fringes of Science
 |publisher=[[Westview Press]]
 |date=February 1995
 |location=Boulder, Colorado
 |isbn=0-8133-2200-6
 |oclc=31046052 }}
* {{cite book
 |editor=Friedman, Sharon M
 |editor2=Dunwoody, Sharon
 |editor3=Rogers, Carol L
 |title=Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science
 |oclc=263560777
 |isbn=0-8058-2727-7
 |place=Mahwah, New Jersey; London
 |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum
 |year=1998
 |url-access=registration
 |url=https://archive.org/details/communicatingunc0000unse
 }}
* {{cite book
 |author=Mauskopf, SH
 |title=The reception of unconventional science
 |place=Boulder, Colorado
 |publisher=Westview Press
 |year=1979
 |isbn=0-89158-297-5
 |oclc=4495634 }}
* {{cite journal
 |author      = Mousseau, Marie-Catherine
 |url         = http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_17_2_mousseau.pdf
 |title       = Parapsychology: Science or Pseudo-Science?
 |journal     = Journal of Scientific Exploration
 |volume      = 17
 |issue       = 2
 |pages       = 271–282
 |year        = 2003
 |issn        = 0892-3310
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20091127152153/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_17_2_mousseau.pdf
 |archive-date = 2009-11-27
}}
* {{cite web|author=Truzzi, Marcello |url=http://skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/perspective.htm |title=The Perspective of Anomalistics |work=Anomalistics |publisher=Center for Scientific Anomalies Research |year=1998 |access-date=2009-04-14 |author-link=Marcello Truzzi |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090206195757/http://skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/perspective.htm |archive-date=February 6, 2009 }}

==External links==
*{{Commons category-inline}}

{{Pseudoscience}}
{{Conspiracy theories}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Fringe Science}}
[[Category:Fringe science| ]]
[[Category:Fringe theory|Science]]
[[Category:Scientific method]]