Fringe science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(May 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study, which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, but which can be classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline.[1]

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

[edit] 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. Mainstream science is likely to fail or make errors, but broadly speaking, a fringe science 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. A valid fringe science may avoid recognition by a scientific consensus 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 a given fringe 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[citation needed]).

[edit] Comparisons

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

  • Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience is notoriously lax in rigorous application of the scientific method, and 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.

[edit] Contemporary examples

Relatively recent fringe sciences 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, especially Aubrey's view on the importance of nuclear (epi)mutations and his purported timeline for antiaging therapeutics, 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.
  • 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

[edit] Historical examples

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.
  • In a rare example of fringe science becoming accepted by the mainstream, the theory of continental drift received little mainstream support until the late 1950s, but the theory today, now known as plate tectonics, has universal acceptance.

[edit] Controversies

Towards the end of the 20th century, religiously-inspired critics cited fringe science theories with limited support in the scientific community in attempts to classify as "controversial" entire fields of scientific inquiry (notably paleo-anthropology, human sexuality, evolution, geology, and paleontology) which 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.[9][10][11]

However, epistemologists have noted these religiously-motivated efforts are typically rooted in misunderstandings of science: the scientific method is often regarded as an ongoing dialogue which aims for perpetual debate and inquiry, and not for inviolable conclusions. 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."[12]

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."

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Dutch, Steven I. (1982). Notes on the Nature of Fringe Science. Journal of Geological Education, v30 n1 p6-13 Jan 1982 ERIC EJ260409 (ed. Identifies three classifications of scientific ideas (center, frontier, fringe) and defines fringe as a region where ideas are highly speculative or weakly confirmed.)
  2. ^ Friedlander, 172.
  3. ^ Friedlander, 5.
  4. ^ Friedlander, 161.
  5. ^ Friedlander, 183.
  6. ^ Henry, Lyell D. (1981) "Unorthodox Science as a Popular Activity", Journal of American Culture 4 (2), 1-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-734X.1981.0402_1.x
  7. ^ Pontin, Jason. "Is Defeating Aging Only A Dream?", Technology Review, July 11, 2006 (includes June 9, 2006 critiques and rebuttals). 
  8. ^ APS Special Session on Cold Fusion, May 1-2, 1989 [1]
  9. ^ The dangers of creationism in education. Council of Europe (2008-03-31).
  10. ^ The Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
  11. ^ Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies of Science, and 7 Other Scientific Organizations in Support of Appellees
  12. ^ Simanek, Donald. Donald Simanek's Page. Retrieved on 2008-04-01.

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

[edit] External links