Talk:Fringe science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Major Re-Write Just Completed
From the village pump
See first two sections (the second, entirely new): 1 Definition, and 2 Relation to Scientific Evolution and Progress. Comments and criticisms are welcome. -- Alan2012 06:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vitamin S?
Vitamin-S, fringe science or real science, YOU be the judge! Seriously though, is there any validity to this article? At the very least, the language needs a touch-up to be more encyclopedic (whatever that means).
While we're at it, can someone please write an article on fringe science? I'll also add it to the list of articles that need creating, but hey, as long as I'm here... --Dante Alighieri 19:16, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Is fringe science another name for pseudoscience? Or maybe junk science, or protoscience? Not to mention pathological science, and just plain bad science... Given the length of some of those talk pages, I'd tread carefully with your definitions! - IMSoP 19:54, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
- None of the above, and here's why... Pseudoscience doesn't subscribe to scientific methodology, fringe science does. Junk science is agenda driven (with disregard for proper methodology), fringe science is not. A protoscience is a new "science" or field of inquiry in the process of becoming established, fringe science research occurs within established fields. It's not bad science because it's not characterized by sloppiness or lax standards. Fringe science is, simply, real science that's just kind of out on the edges of mainstream and widely-accepted theories. In other words, it's the kind of science/theory that stands a shot of becoming respected at some point, just not quite at the moment. This means that the researchers have to be real researchers (and not just some crank in his basement) and they have to use the scientific method. I guess the best alternative label would maybe be "speculative theories" that don't have quite the weight of established doctrine. At least, that's MY take on it. Maybe I should just write the darn article and be done with it... --Dante Alighieri 22:01, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
- Dante, you make a valliant effort to rehabilitate "fringe science", but I am afraid it is to no avail. It is the effective equivalent of "pseudoscience", in common and technical usage. The only way "fringe" can be defended is if a strictly literal meaning is intended; unfortunately that intent will be lost in the overwhelming (negative) connotations of the word. This is a noble but doomed effort. I am currently re-writing the article to reflect this. The re-write will include references. -- Alan2012 01:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There was an article about Aspirin as "Vitamin S" in New Scientist this week. Evercat 02:11, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Good enough for me, I read (pronounced reed, not red) that magazine. Now, if someone cares to examine the language to make it slightly less subjective sounding... --Dante Alighieri 06:44, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Pejorative?
I would say that fringe science is a pejorative term. The article implies that it isn't a pejorative term. It doesn't strike me as neutral at all. The word "fringe" conjures up "lunatic fringe" and is used by the media to marginalize people.--GordonHogenson 14:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I must agree, the term sounds perjorative, and the articles that I have seen it mentioned on (mainly in Talk sections) do not make it clear that it could be considerd 'real' science at some point. However, in the absence of a better term it should stand as is ... but should Wikipedia's science articles mention the fringe science theories that often compete with the current mainstream theory?
There are a lot of areas of science that will change in years to come, and I would hate for Wikipedia to be the cause of some 30-year old being fixated on a particular theory because Wikipedia told him it was so back when he did his high-school science assignment. Should scientific articles have a Fringe Science Theories section to them?
- This article is missing several words, among them: "derogatory", "pejorative", "label, "paradigm", and "Kuhn". I don't think anyone would appreciate being called "fringe". Show me a scientist who uses this word to describe her own work. --Smithfarm 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- eXACTLY. Mainstream scientists are always on the lookout for theories that will challenge their rigidly-held paradigms and are quick to use derogatory terms to slam them and discredit them, even when there may be some truth to the ideas. Many such terms include "quackery" and "psueodscience" which are hurled around las if they were effective "disproving" techniques. I do not understand why Wikipeda is apparently dedicated to supporting these militant attempts at holding back the progress of science and human discovery and I am posting here to announce my attempts to edit this article this article to represent a fairer and more reasonable non-biased point of view. Smith Jones 17:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The term "fringe" is clearly pejorative as it is most often used in the construction "lunatic fringe". Google for "lunatic fringe" produces 750,000 hits, reflecting this very common association. Of course, some people or ideas described as "fringe" really ARE loony (lunatic), but to lump all of them in with anyone doing leading-edge science or speculative work (new hypotheses, new directions not yet well-documented, etc), would be unfair. "Fringe science" comes off as approximately equivalent to "pseudoscience", try as this article might to distinguish them. It is a hopeless effort. Just use "fringe science" as a synonym or alternative to "pseudoscience" (consistent with the common understanding when hearing those words/phrases), and use a phrase like "unconventional science" or "speculative science" (or "protoscience" -- see WP entry) to refer to that category of activity that steps outside the realm of conventional or mainstream research, and do so without reference to the presumed psychic health ("lunatic" or other) of the researcher, or the presumed suitability of the subject of the research. -- Alan2012 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Major Re-Write Just Revereted
This recent re-write of the fringe science article came from the wikipedian's very narrow conception of the single word "fringe." Repeatedly the wikipedian referred to the supposedly strictly pejorative nature of the term "fringe," which is an absurd assertion. From an etymological perspective, nothing could be further from the truth. The wikipedian used the term "fringe lunatic" as though it were the definitive context of the word "fringe" (ignoring, in the process, the connotation of the word "lunatic"). The Oxford English Dictionary offers these two primary definitions of the term "fringe:"
"1. a. An ornamental bordering, consisting of a narrow band to which are attached threads of silk, cotton, etc., either loose or formed into tassels, twists, etc. (Occas. spec. that worn by the Hebrews in accordance with the command in Num. xv. 38.)"
"2. 2. a. Anything resembling this; a border or edging, esp. one that is broken or serrated."
Under these, a number of banal "fringe" items are considered, including instances from plants, animals, and the field of optics.
The definition nearest to our own, "fringe medicine," receives this definition: "fringe medicine, a collective term for systems of treatment of disease, etc., that are not regarded by the medical profession as part of orthodox treatment or whose efficacy and underlying premises are disputed."
Note the relevant portions of this definition are repeated in the article that was deleted. Note that nothing about the OED definition of fringe medicine suggests derogation.
In the future, please leave issues of word definition, etymology, etc. to those who can manage a dictionary. Pschelden 11:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, Pschel, but the dictionary is always a decade or three behind common useage, which is what my edit accounted for. The term "fringe", in practice, and regarding science or medicine, is nearly always used as a pejorative; see the article for discussion and references. The patterns of actual use of a word cannot be predicted by a dictionary; that would be an unreasonable expectation. This is not a matter of taking up "issues of word definition"; it is a matter of responding to actual word definitions as they have evolved, and demonstrably, in common useage. If you want to object to other specific passages, I'll be glad to listen and discuss with you. I will revert to my edit now. Thanks for your interest. Alan2012 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, I can, and I did. Please read the article. Read the paragraph starting with "Regarding the pejorative nature of the phrase...". See the citations. There are many more citations that could be offered, but this is not the place for them. Alan2012 22:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- PS: Shot, why are you stalking me? Please stop. Alan2012 22:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Alan, WP:AGF. I obviously edit a lot more articles than yourself and occassionally we cross paths. This is wikipedia remember, if you think you have a problem, you can always go for mediation. BTW, the attributions you provided are poor, which is why other editors (not just myself) are questioning this. Shot info 05:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Alan, I agree with Shot. I'm not interested in being on either side of an ideological dispute. The fact is, "fringe" is not as you suggest it to be, as per the strongest authority on the English language, the OED. As for common usage, from what basis have you presumed Wikipedia should be tailored to the common usage of words, rather than their standard historical usage? I strongly suggest you revert to the former version of this article. Pschelden 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I am not in an "ideological dispute" that I know of. We're talking about this article. Your critique on the basis of OED definition of a different phrase is either irrelevant or marginally relevant. The phrase that is the topic of this article, is the topic here. This phrase has a meaning that has evolved over time and now denotes roughly what I have stated that it denotes. See my references. I will provide you with a few more in a moment, but only a few more. It should not be necessary to provide dozens. The bottom line is that the phrase "fringe science" is used most often in the same breath (or nearly) with "quackery", "flim-flam", "fraud", "pathological", etc. And indeed, as pointed out earlier, "fringe" has strong connotations of "lunatic fringe" -- a common phrase. In any case, the pattern of actual usage is clear enough; I don't see what there is to disagree with, or why anyone would bother. What is the purpose of suggesting a different definition than the one that is evident in both scholarly and popular literature? (See my citations.) If you want the article to be toned-down with respect to a few of the descriptive words ("opprobrium", "derogation"), that might be acceptable. You can suggest alternatives, or I will. I'll hold off a day or two before reverting to my original. If you want to make specific changes or corrections, that's fine. I welcome suggestions for improvement. Alan2012 22:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- As my recommendations were ignored, I made them myself. Pschelden 00:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
..........................................................
A few more examples, with my comments [in square brackets like this]:
1. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ideomotor.html --- "Many pseudo- and fringe-scientists often react to the failure of science to confirm their prized beliefs, not by gracefully accepting the possibility that they were wrong, but by arguing that science is defective."
[Note "pseudo- and fringe-"; i.e. they are largely the same, or heavily overlapping. Pseudo-science = bunk, trash, junk, etc. --AEL]
2. http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/PSEUDO/pseudo.html --- "Pathological and Fringe Science" ... [links]
[Note "PATHOLOGICAL and Fringe"; "fringe" shares space with psychopathology! --AEL]
3. http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/118/5/376 --- Magnetic Healing, Quackery, and the Debate about the Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields; Annals of Internal Medicine 1 March 1993: "It will be interesting to observe whether the new, more authoritative investigations of EMF bioeffects currently being done are perceived with the sort of open-minded appraisal expected of scientific inquiries or whether they will continue to be consigned to the level of "fringe" science [61]. [reference #61: 61. Huber PW. Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. Los Angeles, CA, Basic Books; 1991."
[Note that "fringe" is a debased level to which things are "consigned". Note the reference: to "Junk Science". --AEL]
Alan2012 22:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
To repeat and affirm: I welcome constructive criticism, specific suggestions for improvement, and specific suggestions for altering the tone. But wholesale reversion of all the previous text is radical, it harms the article and does a disservice to wiki users, and it is not in the spirit of wiki as a publically-created, ever-improving encyclopedia. Thank you. Alan2012 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Curiously I read the above links and I cannot see a problem, or rather I cannot see the problem that you find. The use of fringe science is as fringe science and the current article makes the association with ... well... "fringe science". I find your use of it as a pejorative rather precious and generally not in accordance with the references provided above. Of course with careful editioralising as you have provided (ie/ OR) you can draw the conclusion you have, but the links don't make the connection that you claim is obvious, not without some synthesis. Just my 2c. Shot info 05:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think Shot's point about careful editorializing is on the mark. The links show only metonymic connections between the term "fringe science" and the terms "pseudo-science," "pathological" and "junk science." In other words, the argument does nothing more than switch name for name in order to closely associate or equalize the terms, thus making "fringe science" appear pejorative.
-
- But the context of the links require a different kind of connection--one in which each term shares one aspect or part. As such, the pejorative statements, general as they may be, do not represent the term "fringe science" in whole, but rather an aspect of fringe science that may find disfavor.
-
- In the case of any class that is defined by its peripheral status, there will be some form of rejection either by the group by which they are distanced, or by themselves toward the group. This is just the definition of "fringe." Your point 1) suggests this:
-
-
- 1. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ideomotor.html ---
- "Many pseudo- and fringe-scientists often react to the failure of science to confirm their prized beliefs, not by gracefully accepting the possibility that they were wrong, but by arguing that science is defective."
-
-
- This is, by definition, how people are excluded from a given group--by disagreeing with the group's precepts. This citation only suggests that some scientists self-identify as "fringe" by arguing against the mainstream. It does not show that "fringe science" is a pejorative term.
-
- It's important to resist making the synechdochal connection that because both fringe science and pseudo-science are rejected by mainstream scientists, they must be equal as terms of abuse (assuming pseudo-science really does mean "bunk, trash, junk, etc." as you suggest). By synechdochal, I mean associating the place of commonality as being equal to the terms themselves. In this instance, the aspect shared by the class of pseudo-scientists and fringe scientists is its members' rejection of the scientific method. As such, members of this class are charged (by this one author) of distancing themselves from the established sciences by disagreeing with their methods. This does not mean that the author necessarily associates the two on all aspects (and does not prove that he associates the term with other pejoratives).
-
- Even if you proved your position regarding this term, the article as it was before you changed it would need to be restored undera new term. It does define *something*, whether or not the term "fringe science" is the preferred one (which it seems to be based on a comparison of the former article and the article under your revisions). Have you considered putting your added comments in another article, like "criticisms of the use of the term 'fringe science'"? Pschelden 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge from controversial science
Content was merged here from controversial science which was deemed by consensus to need merging to this article.
I note that the "controversy" section which comes exclusively from the article merged into this one could use some generalizing and expanding. Also citation formats should be standardized.
Fradulent Ideas 14:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV
The controversies section shows obvious POV. It has numerous comments that are obviously intended as slams against creationism and intelligent design and appear to take a very specific position on them. These comments don't conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy and ought to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.245.174 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Creationism and ID are on the fringe of science. In fact, they actually do not qualify as a science since they posit the existence of a supernatural. Science is firmly grounded in the natural processes and cannot rely on some magical being for explanation. 65.24.120.124 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- wow, you do not know science, do you. Science is creator neutral, it does care either way. I believe in evolution, but if you truely understand science then you will realize that science may or may not need some magical explanation. You're arguement is entirely biased on your opinions, not scientific understanding. Read a physics book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmkass (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- "Creationism" is a term generally used to describe belief in a literal view of Genesis (or some equivalent religious creation myth), not just a belief that "God is responsible for it all" (that's why "theistic evolution" isn't classed as creationism). As Genesis has been disproved (i.e. "falsified"), it isn't scientific, and any attempt to pretend otherwise is definitely pseudoscience. And ID is "rebadged creationism" (this is clear by the writings of its own advocates, and has been found to be so in a court of law: try googling the phrase "cdesign proponentsists"). Advocates reject (among other things) the scientific principle of methodological naturalism, and also generally reject the empirically-verified fact that mutations can and do create "information". --Robert Stevens (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why does "Fringe theory" redirect here?
Why does "Fringe theory" redirect here? I understand that many Fringe theories involve Fringe science, but there are Fringe theories in other accademic disciplines (especially in history), as well as in pop culture. I suggest that we create a short article on the concept of Fringe theories in general, one that prominently links to this article. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Go for it - there are plenty of fringe theories to go around. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Controversies
Does anybody have a serious objection to removal of the dubious tag from the first sentence of the Controversies section?
As an aside, is there an analogue to the globalize tag that could be applied to encourage expansion of this section to cover more than just the one set of controversies? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal
List of minority-opinion scientific theories overlaps heavily with this page. I prefer that title since "fringe" is somewhat judgmental, but this is clearly a more thorough article. At the very least, the two should be linked to each other.Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pseudo science
This is just a POV-name for pseudo science. It's a name used by pseudo science and their followers/believers to make it sound more positive. So it's better to merge a summary of this article into the article of pseudo science. --Jeroenvrp (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you read the article, there's a specific discrimination between the two: fringe science follows the scientific method, pseudoscience does not. Just because a theory is unpopular does not make it unscientific. Pseudoscience is flawed by nature and will never be accepted by the scientific community without a change to the structure of the argument. Looking at the history of science, many of the cornerstones of modern practice are based on what was originally "fringe", so immediately dismissing an unlikely but credible theory because it does not agree with current dogma is inappropriate. Science is not a religion.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Part of why I think this should be rolled into the "minority opinion" article. The title "fringe" suggests kookiness and invites inclusion of things that no one would consider particularly scientific. Mostly I see this page as a place to collect theories that are too old to be protoscience but haven't been convincingly rejected yet (the abiogenic petroleum thing is a good example, though it seems like it's about to fall into the "rejected" box since it doesn't help finding oil, but it at least works in the lab), or ideas that were never really accepted, have been rejected, and are dead but are of historical interest (i.e. Aquatic Ape in human evolution). WP:FRINGE is the driving policy, though, so the name of the article fits.
-
-
-
- Maybe a "one paper minimum" policy for inclusion? Unfortunately, Intelligent Design meets that criterion, and it's most assuredly pseudoscience.Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-
We could merge into List of minority-opinion scientific theories and then chang the name of that article to Minority-opinion scientific theories. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Inclusion of dysgenics
User:Ramdrake has suggested[1] that a section on human population dysgenics be added to this article. The section would summarize the information in the old version of the Dysgenics article[2] so that article can be changed to focus more on the biological dysgenics of fruit flies and mice. Comments? --Jagz (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
