This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fringe science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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, 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)
There was an article about Aspirin as "Vitamin S" in New Scientist this week. Evercat 02:11, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
..........................................................
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)
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)
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)
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? 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by fringe scientists is being discussed here [6]. PPdd ( talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
From my talk [9]:
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
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? S B H arris 05:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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. citation needed
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fringe science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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, 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)
There was an article about Aspirin as "Vitamin S" in New Scientist this week. Evercat 02:11, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
..........................................................
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)
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)
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)
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? 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by fringe scientists is being discussed here [6]. PPdd ( talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
From my talk [9]:
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
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? S B H arris 05:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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. citation needed