Talk:Fringe science

Conflicting passages?

In the introduction: "Though there are examples of mainstream scientists supporting maverick ideas within their own discipline of expertise, fringe science theories and ideas are advanced by individuals either without a traditional academic science background, or by researchers outside the mainstream discipline."

While in the Description section: "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."

These two passages give clearly conflicting accounts of who "does" pseudoscience (those without a traditional academic background vs (often? sometimes?) recognised scientists. As an aside, the statement that fringe science is within accepted standards doesn't seem to fit with the definition of fringe science presented in the rest of the article; and the idea that resistance to change marks sound judgment doesn't make any sense - aren't revision and change characteristic of sound judgment and good science? CowboyBear (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And this observation of contradictory definitions is still true today, 3 years later! In just the introduction it states both (1) "Fringe science is scientific inquiry" and (2) "Fringe science covers everything from novel hypotheses that can be tested via scientific method to wild ad hoc theories and "New Age mumbo jumbo" with the dominance of the latter resulting in the tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of pseudoscientists, hobbyists, or quacks". The term therefore becomes useless as a descriptor, since it will mean different things to different people. I will add something to say that the term is not well-defined. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"Wikipedias role" is the consequence of a rule system, so Wikipedia is not acting consciously. The major principles here, I think, are: WP:BOLD, WP:Neutral Point of View, citability and consensus. If you want to affect the workings of Wikipedia you should challenge the "militant attempts", and as you say "edit this article to represent a fairer and more reasonable non-biased point of view" (WP:Neutral Point of View). I believe the "militant attempts" are the result of WP:BOLD, which is an important factor for the expansion of the "fact base" of Wikipedia, but we can always recommend editors to mention their examples in the talk page of the article, before writing them into the article itself – mentioning them here first, diminishes their risk of immediatelly being reverted away by some opposing editor. Said: Rursus (☻) 07:17, 13 October 2008 (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)

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)

Alan, can you provide sources for the attributions (common usage?) per WP:V and WP:RS? It seems again you are using WP:OR to justify your edits which is not what WP is about. Thanks Shot info 22:51, 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)

I know this is really late but I think I shoudl point people to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Burn_Barrett_Bandwagon.3F as an example of how poor Barrett's research is. It is so bad in that article I seriously question if he should used as a reliable source for any article other than his own.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Pretty uniquely among "fact vindication systems", creationism and intelligent design have been judged not sciences by the US federal court, so by US laws they cannot be taught in the same context as just any science. Since the creationist and intelligent design systems are not using the ordinary fact acquisition query and test methods, and in some cases imposes thought taboos on the practitioners, they should be regarded religion, not science. Fringe science follow the rules of science, but makes annoying statements that mainstream is not accepting. Creationism and intelligent design should be in another article, not in this one. I think they already are. Said: Rursus (☻) 07:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I like these points. Do you have citations for the judgments you mentioned? "Creation science" is given as an example at Pseudoscience. If you have sources which use phrasing similar to what you just said we can further differentiate this article from pseudoscience. As you can see by the IP below asking for a sourced definition, that would be helpful. NJGW (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There are serious problems in the 'Controversies' section. The paragraph which reads "Epistemologists have noted.. on correct understanding" is filled with un-sourced philosophical assertions. For instance: "...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. This is not the case." What reason are we given to believe such hair-splitting differences? The quote provided seems to share a similar perspective, but does not directly address the preceding statement, nor the statement which follows it. The quote does however address the subject of the other paragraphs in this section. Therefore I suggest retaining the quote, but removing the sentences which bracket it.Ignatiusboethius (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Pseudo science

Stale

 – No discussion since May 12. NJGW (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

I don't say that there are no scientific theories that are on the edge of science, but the name "fringe science" is (almost) only used by people who wants to get rid of the word "pseudo" in "pseudo science". --Jeroenvrp (talk) 18:51, 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag because there hasn't been discussion on the topic in a long time. If you feel there is something POV, please either change it or mark the section that seems POV (not the whole article). NJGW (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

what is this article about?

fringe theories, or pseudosciences and voodo science?

The first paragraph talks about all of those: The term pseudoscience is used to describe fields which are referred to as sciences, but lack scientific rigor or plausibility, though such fields are sometimes labeled fringe as well. Scientists have also coined the terms voodoo science and cargo cult science to describe inquiry lacking in scientific integrity.

Are those the same, or are they different, or do they overlap? Why are they put together in the very beginning of this article?

Lakinekaki (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed that statement and made it a third paragraph instead. See how it looks. I tend to believe there is overlap in that where a field falls in the taxonomy of sciences (mainstream, maverick, fringe, psuedo-) can be very subjective (though this article attempts to remove the subjectivity by finding consensus in the literature). NJGW (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better now. Lakinekaki (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Source for lead sentence

Since this article is about fringes, some statements require exceptional sources, per WP:FRINGE. the very first source doesn't seem to be so reliable -- citation coming from a paper that has a single self-citation (and 2 others below it not counted by GoogleScholar?). I am sure someone here will be able to find a more reliable source for this statement -- a source that is more cited and is not a fringe itself. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The citation is published and establishes the term as one used by the scientific community as well as its definition. Do you have a specific issue with the reliability/verifiability or notability of the ciation, which would preclude us from using the source to establish the use of the term? NJGW (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have two objections:

First, the sentence itself is a logical fallacy. It tries to describe 'fringe science' by equating the theory of (presumably) mainstream scientist with the mainstream science. By the same reasoning, every theory published by Newton, Tesla or Einstein is mainstream.

Second, while the sentence sais Fringe concepts are considered highly speculative or weakly confirmed by mainstream scientists, concept described by this sentence itself cannot be confirmed by mainstream citations, and is therefore fringe. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, how would you define a fringe science, and what source are you using? Second, what concept surrounding "speculative or weakly confirmed by mainstream scientists" cannot be confirmed? Third, a sourced statement is not science, but enclyclopedic. You are inventing a very novel definition of science, not to mention fringe. NJGW (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That "encyclopedic" statement sounds WP:FRINGE, and statement should be referenced or cited extensively. See the number of citations in this example (certainly acknowledged by peers), and then compare to a single self-citation from the lead. Can you find a statement that's acknowledged by 'mainstream' scientist? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source which claims that the number of papers that cite yours determines how fringy you are? How about a source for your claim that the article in question is fringy? Try scholar.googling "definition of fringe science" OR "fringe science definition"... ZERO results. Now try just plain "fringe science": 315 results. Conclusion, the definition is so common knowledge that authors don't feel the need to explain what it means. For example, how does this article define fringe science? In fact, please do find another, better sourced definition of fringe science so we can get over this chrade of yours. NJGW (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion, the definition is so common knowledge It may be common knowledge where you come from, however, it is not common knowledge in my neighborhood, and therefore I ask you to provide reliable sources. I don't need to source my claims as they are not in the "encyclopedic" article. However, you do need to source yours as it is in the "encyclopedic" article. This "charade" will continue until you actually find a mainstream source for the definition of fringe. It's been more than a month since I started this thread. Is it really that hard to find a mainstream source for the mainstream claim? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you still think I am 'charading', than thank you for WP:AFG, and look at this example:

Lead sentence: Fringe concepts are considered highly speculative or weakly confirmed by mainstream scientists.

lots of fringe science that you can find if you start digging thru articles in sub-categories. Are they highly speculative? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

All the "fringe sciences" listed in the article are well sourced as fringe. Please source your claim that the definition is fringe. NJGW (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:DNFTT. --dab (𒁳) 16:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please [Don't_be_a_dick]216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The intro

The Science article says the following --"Any established body of knowledge which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms is not science; it is often known as fringe- or alternative science". How come the intro to this article is so wishy washy and does not reflect that statement? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from all the discussion above, not everybody sees this as a cut-and-dry issue. Some people don't like being told that their area is fringe, and others take the opportunity to try and change the meaning of "fringe". Feel free to wp:be bold. NJGW (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What Science article are you referring to? II | (t - c) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello II. I suppose your question was directed at me and not NJGW. The answer is our own Science article which says "Any established body of knowledge which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms is not science; it is often known as fringe- or alternative science. " Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you meant the magazine. We should not state opinions as if they were categorical facts; let the readers make up their mind. I think the third paragraph of the lead covers this pretty well; many things called fringe science could just as easily be called pseudoscience. II | (t - c) 07:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• On my recent edit [3], others can verify that the statement that fringe science can never become mainstream science was unsupported by viewing the pages previously cited on GBooks. I checked the actual book out, which is why I cited a few pages not available on Google. This miscitation was originally introduced by NJGW [4] There wasn't exactly a miscitation, but somewhat imprecise wording left me with a wrong interpretation. NJGW also removed paradigm shift from the see also list with question in the edit summary "how is this related???" [5]. Friedlander discusses Kuhn and paradigm shifts, as does probably every other article on fringe science, so I re-added it. II | (t - c) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you got from "There is also the possibility that a science considered fringe by the public will eventually become mainstream" to "fringe science can never become mainstream science". If you are happy with the more precise wording then that's fine too. As for paradigm shifts, without context it's just a disconnected phrase at the bottom of the article. If it's discussed in every article you've read, then the thing to do would be to add a section on the connection. NJGW (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I read the statement in question, "there is also the possibility that a science considered fringe by the public will eventually become mainstream, but this is attributed to a lack of scientific understanding by non-scientists" fast and took away the second clause: "but this is attributed to a lack of scientific understanding among the public". So my reading of that was that there's the public perception of the possibility, but it's actually impossible. If the second clause had instead said that "but the general perception by the public that fringe science will become accepted is attributed to lack of understanding" it would have been easier for me to interpret. Again, my apologies for misinterpreting your statement. Feel free to restore similar wording which emphasizes that it's the public perception if you want. II | (t - c) 17:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just found this article, having searched for one on this topic. It's a very interesting and sometimes tragic topic. See the Michael Brooks reference that I added. I think this intro is great. "fringe science can never become mainstream science" would be awful. It's utterly POV. We should not argue about the definition of words but rather use the best word we can find and clarify just exactly what we mean by it. It's the meaning and clarity in the text that matters not the exactitude of the words used. It's really important to to say that most great science starts on the fringe until it gets enough evidence to be accepted. Consider Darwin and Wegener as examples. Budhen (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"fringe science can never become mainstream science" I'm really confused as to why that keeps getting repeated, as I don't see the statement being made anywhere. As for Darwin, he seems to me to have sat on the social/religious fringe, not the scientific (he had tons of evidence). This type of characterization issue is an ongoing debate at talk:Pseudoscience. Continental drift on the other hand seems like a great example (though one of few). Perhaps some of Einstein's ideas could aslo be considered fringe at first, given the initial scientific opposition and lack of experimental evidence (though those were clearly not pseudoscience as pointed out at that talk page). NJGW (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Need examples of prior fringe science which has become mainstream

I'm a practicing [mad <g>] scientist, and just stumbled across this article, which I generally think is great. But... early on it states "On the other hand, the history of science contains many instances of the eventual widespread acceptance of fringe sciences. " However, there aren't any examples of such instances listed. It would strengthen the article to include several such examples. Three that I can think of: (a) Big impact event killed off the dinosaurs - K-T boundary stuff, Chixilub crater, 65 million y.a. (b) Plate tectonics. (c) Mars-size impact event at around 4 billion y.a. leading to formation of the moon. Um, I'm a biologist, how come these are all from geology? anyway, any other thots on the subject of adding in such examples? Lanephil (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Echo of the Big Bang by Princeton University Press clearly states "Forty years ago the Big Bang was a somewhat crackpot theory" (pg 7) so it is firmly documented that at one time Big Bang theory was considered crackpot ie fringe science. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by fringe scientists

Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by fringe scientists is being discussed here[6]. PPdd (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Too much repetition

I just wanted to make a stylistic point - the article attempts to distinguish "fringe science" from "pseudoscience" way too many times. The tone comes off as very defensive, and sounds like someone on a mission to uphold fringe science. The distinction between the two concepts should certainly be made, but it looks like this article is doing it more than necessary. SnehaNar (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to fix this. Just as there is a demarcation problem between science and non-science, there is also a demarcation problem between fringe science and pseudoscience. There is not a clear dividing line, but it is clear that some (if not most) consider the term pseudoscience to be more pejorative than fringe science. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

rewrote the intro

I rewrote the intro because a lot of opinion was masquerading as fact and vice-versa. I tried to keep the main ideas but remove the commentary. You can see what I did here: [7]

140.252.83.232 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrote the Description

I rewrote the description to remove a lot of opinion masquerading as fact and vice-versa. I tried to keep the main ideas but remove the commentary. You can see what I did here: [8]

140.252.83.232 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

140.252.83.232 do you have other reccomendations for improving this article? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why let these edits by an anonymous IP lead to advisory position? See my comment here. Mr Gearloose (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering one of the edits removed information referenced to a book published by Princeton University Press which clearly states "Forty years ago the Big Bang was a somewhat crackpot theory" I have serious reservations about these anonymous IP edits. When a reference based on its publisher qualifies as being among Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources "usually the most reliable sources" is removed with no explication or explanation in the talk page something has seriously gone wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Editorial comment in the lede

Re: The opening paragraph saying the term should be avoided... I agree with the sentiment... but, it is inappropriate for an article to include an editorial comment telling people what terms they should avoid. I have removed the editorializing. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

REMOVE THIS PAGE

This entire lemma and all references to it should be removed from Wikipedia. There is no notion of "fringe science" in the philosophy of science. This is not a mere opinion about the subject: the entire notion is nonexisting. The fact that someone used the term once in a paper doesn't merit its inclusion in Wikipedia. The whole term is solely used as a derogatory label to publicly discredit theories that deviate from some accepted model. It is complete and utter nonsense to include a lemma that insinuates that there is some accepted use of the term "fringe science" in scientific discourse: there isn't. For comparison, Heisenberg mentioned in a letter to Pauli that he considered some writings of Schroedinger "crap": does that mean that we now have to include a lemma in Wikipedia about the notion of "crap"? Of course not.212.78.214.166 (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Vsmith (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 212.78.214.166 that this page can be put up for speedy deletion. This doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia.131.155.202.216 (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This is indeed a genuine thing, as demonstrated by the 34 sources used in the article, and numerous others. Whether or not it is accepted in "scientific" discourse vs. public discourse is not a meaningful question regarding the existence of the article. siafu (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Dead Link

@Ronz: The source is dead. It no longer links to anything. So we should remove it and replace with citation needed. Why do you keep reverting?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Don't remove sources. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if we couldn't find an online version, it is a reliable source and shouldn't be removed. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Didn't realize the source was even published on PM, have replaced with proper journal sourcing so that since it doesn't exist as full text, people can find it in paper at the local medical library. :P--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what AGF has to do with it. Do you understand that removing a reference is inappropriate, regardless or whether or not it is available online? --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to stick to WP principles. If the source is no longer available in any form, it should be removed and replaced with a source that does exist. It is available elsewhere, so I shouldn't have removed it. You, though, should assume good faith in that I was attempting to fix the ref, not delete it for some agenda or whatever.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. You simply are mistaken. I know it's written down somewhere, stronger than WP:PAYWALL, but I'm having trouble finding it. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BADLINK, WP:DEADREF. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

New Age mumbo jumbo and reference

From my talk [9]:

Due to a mistyping, I forgot to add a summary to my recent reversion. I was going to say "Regardless of what the reference says, inclusion of "New Age" here is POV and not permissible. The term "mumbo jumbo" alone makes the point." Wahrmund (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand how this context could be a problem, only it's removal. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone have the source to start? --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking closer, I'm not against the removal of the context, given that it's the lede. However, the removal of the reference is another matter. What is it verifying? Maybe we should look to see when it was added? --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the ref is good, it's perfectly fine. It shouldn't be removed. I think it's verifying the "mumbo jumbo" claim. But "New Age" in mumbo jumbo might be overkill and edging into POV, I think Wahrmund has a fair point there.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. How's this? --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's good, except I really like the (mostly the latter) wording. I think it's stylish, reads well, and is very in-wiki. It's very encyclopedic, in my opinion.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, if my suspicions are correct, I think the original wording intended the entire clause "wild ad hoc hypotheses and mumbo jumbo" to be the antecedent to (mostly the latter), not just "mumbo jumbo."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fringe science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090206195757/http://skepticalinvestigations.org:80/anomalistics/perspective.htm to http://skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/perspective.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fringe science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912101731/http://www.univie.ac.at/virusss/opus/OPUS%20Report%20Final.pdf to http://www.univie.ac.at/virusss/opus/OPUS%20Report%20Final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fringe science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813201055/http://www.assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fringe science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FWorkingDocs%2FDoc07%2FEDOC11297.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091127152153/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_17_2_mousseau.pdf to http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_17_2_mousseau.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Who decides?

The article says it's a pseudoscie nce if it's claimed to be, but isn't. The "ISN'T" part, is not the hardest part, but who gets counted in the claim that it IS. If 5% of people involved think it's a natural science, is that enough to call it one? If only its enemies think it is, is THAT enough? Suppose some enemies think it's a pseudoscience, and others a merely a religion? Or both views are held? Since application of the "tag" pseudoscience or fringe science has a rather important impact on how topics are handled on Wikipedia, these issues should be dealt with. For example, is all transhumanism "fringe science"? Why or why not? SBHarris 05:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources decide.

• If all reliable sources either do not mention the question or say it is pseudoscience, we say it is pseudoscience.
• If all reliable sources either do not mention the question or say it is not pseudoscience, we do not mention the question. (WP articles are about what is the case and not about what is not the case.)
• If all reliable sources either do not mention the question, say it is pseudoscience, or say it is not pseudoscience, we say who says it is pseudoscience and who says it is not pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This editor is forum-shopping a discussion from Talk:Cryonics - David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 13:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Fringe science → Alternative science – Fringe is a loaded term, in breach of WP:NPOV. In terms of use, Google Scholar shows 3 times more mentions of alternative science than of fringe science. Currently, Wikipedia is saying alternative science may mean pseudoscience, but that's not accurate. Alternative science is science, just not widely accepted science. Pseudoscience, OTOH, as the term implies, isn't science. Guarapiranga (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Everybody knows that Alternative medicine is medicine that doesn't work. Is Alternative science science that doesn't work? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Alternative science" is covered by our pseudoscience article, this is a distinct topic. Alexbrn (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - euphemism treadmill - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - See Alternative facts. "Alternative science" is a wording used by crackpots, while "fringe science" is used by scientists. Wikipedia prefers scientists. If you want to use "alternative science", you can do that in an alternative wiki. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Fringe just means outside of the mainstream. The article is about science outside of the mainstream.– BrandonXLF (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, "alternative science" is mostly just used by fringe proponents to downplay their fringe status. ApLundell (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uncited material in need of citations

I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

Fringe science is an inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream theories in that field and is considered to be questionable by the mainstream.

Fringe science may be either a questionable application of a scientific approach to a field of study or an approach whose status as scientific is widely questioned.

Description

The term "fringe science" denotes unorthodox scientific theories and models. Persons who create fringe science may have employed the scientific method in their work, but their results are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. Fringe science may be advocated by a scientist who has some recognition within the larger scientific community, but this is not always the case. Usually the evidence provided by fringe science is accepted only by a minority and is rejected by most experts.

Scientology

Shouldn't Scientology be in here too? 2A02:3100:630C:AF00:C917:2E62:5CAD:BF69 (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Scientology is a weird religion, and has nothing to do with science save for sounding like a sciency word. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Light Process by Yasmuheen

I Havn't found both ( Light Process as presented by Yasmuheen ) in the en.wp. 2A02:3100:630C:AF00:C917:2E62:5CAD:BF69 (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Fringe Psychotherapy

that's what I'm missing, at least as a redirect. I just don't know where to redirect it to. 2A02:3100:630C:AF00:C917:2E62:5CAD:BF69 (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)