Fringe science

Description

The line separating fringe science from pseudoscience remains disputed, with no widespread agreement on what distinguishes science from nonscience. Pseudoscience is characterized as something not scientific that is incorrectly presented as science. The term fringe science can carry a pejorative connotation, suggesting kookiness. Continental drift, for instance, was rejected for decades due to a lack of conclusive evidence before plate tectonics gained acceptance.

Examples

Historical ideas later refuted by mainstream science include Wilhelm Reich's work with orgone, a physical energy he claimed to have discovered, which led to his alienation from the psychiatric community and a prison sentence; scientists disputed his evidence, though amateurs and fringe researchers continued to believe in it. Focal infection theory, once accepted after World War I based on flawed studies, caused millions of needless dental extractions before falling out of favor by the late 1950s. The Clovis First theory, long regarded as mainstream, was discredited by mounting evidence of a pre-Clovis culture. More recent fringe science includes Aubrey de Grey's strategies for engineered negligible senescence (SENS), which many mainstream scientists consider highly speculative and not reproducible with current knowledge, though not demonstrably wrong.

Responding to fringe science

Michael W. Friedlander proposed guidelines for responding to fringe science, including impeccable accuracy, checking cited sources, not overstating orthodox science, and understanding the Wegener continental drift example. He argued that fringe science is necessary to prevent mainstream science from atrophying, as some fringe discoveries may later become accepted while others never receive confirmation. Margaret Wertheim described outsider scientists who use the scientific method but cannot grasp modern complex theories, noting that credentialed scientists often lack time to address their ideas.

Donald E. Simanek observed that the public often treats speculative hypotheses as scientific truths, unaware that science passes through confusion and uncertainty. The media also contribute by presenting controversial science as newsworthy due to its dramatic value and connection to high-stake societal issues.