5.2 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fringe science | 2/2 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T03:43:48.153140+00:00 | kb-cron |
== Responding to fringe science == Michael W. Friedlander has suggested some guidelines for responding to fringe science, which, he argues, is a more difficult problem 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. 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". 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.
=== 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." 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."
== See also ==
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 ==
== Bibliography == Ben-Yehuda, Nachman (1990). 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. OCLC 19128625. Brante, Thomas; Fuller, Steve; Lynch, William (1993). Controversial science: from content to contention. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. OCLC 26096166. Brooks, M. (2008). 13 Things That Don't Make Sense. New York: Doubleday. OCLC 213480209. —— (31 March 2009). "Why science doesn't make sense". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2009-04-04. Retrieved 2 April 2009. Brown, George E. Jr. (23 October 1996). Environmental science under siege: fringe science and the 104th Congress. Washington, D.C.: Democratic Caucus of the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives. OCLC 57343997. Cooke, R. M. (1991). Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-506465-8. OCLC 22710786. CSICOP On-line: Scientifically Investigating Paranormal and Fringe Science Claims Archived 2014-03-16 at the Wayback Machine—Committee for Skeptical Inquiry de Jager, Cornelis (March 1990). "Science, fringe science and pseudo-science". Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 31 (1): 31–45. Bibcode:1990QJRAS..31...31D. ISSN 0035-8738. Dutch, Steven I. (January 1982). "Notes on the nature of fringe science". Journal of Geological Education. 30 (1): 6–13. Bibcode:1982JGeoE..30....6D. doi:10.5408/0022-1368-30.1.6. ISSN 0022-1368. OCLC 92686827. Frazier, Kendrick (1981). Paranormal borderlands of science. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-148-7. OCLC 251487947. Friedlander, Michael W. (February 1995). At the Fringes of Science. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-2200-6. OCLC 31046052. Friedman, Sharon M; Dunwoody, Sharon; Rogers, Carol L, eds. (1998). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, New Jersey; London: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN 0-8058-2727-7. OCLC 263560777. Mauskopf, SH (1979). The reception of unconventional science. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 0-89158-297-5. OCLC 4495634. Mousseau, Marie-Catherine (2003). "Parapsychology: Science or Pseudo-Science?" (PDF). Journal of Scientific Exploration. 17 (2): 271–282. ISSN 0892-3310. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-11-27. Truzzi, Marcello (1998). "The Perspective of Anomalistics". Anomalistics. Center for Scientific Anomalies Research. Archived from the original on February 6, 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-14.
== External links == Media related to Fringe science at Wikimedia Commons