Fringe science

There are differing definitions of fringe science. Fringe science may be valid science which is not considered mainstream. Alternatively, it may be a questionable scientific approach to a field of study. In any case, it is an inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from the mainstream theory in that field.

Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe science as highly speculative or even as actually refuted. Fringe science theories are often advanced by persons who have no traditional academic science background, or by researchers outside the mainstream discipline. The general public has difficulty distinguishing between science and its imitators, and in some cases a "yearning to believe or a generalized suspicion of experts is a very potent incentive to accepting pseudoscientific claims".

The term "fringe science" covers everything from novel hypotheses which can be tested by means of the scientific method to wild ad hoc hypotheses and mumbo jumbo. This has resulted in a tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of pseudoscientists, hobbyists, and cranks.

Other terms used for the questionable areas of fringe science are pathological science, voodoo science, and cargo cult science. Junk science is a term typically used in the political arena to describe ideas considered to be dubious or fraudulent.

A concept that was once accepted by the mainstream scientific community may become fringe science because of a later evaluation of previous research. For example, focal infection theory, which held that focal infections of the tonsils or teeth are a primary cause of systemic disease, was once considered to be medical fact. It has since been dismissed because of lack of evidence.

Some theories that were once rejected as fringe science, but were eventually accepted as mainstream science, are:


    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.

    The boundary between fringe science and pseudoscience is disputed. The connotation of "fringe science" is that the enterprise is rational but is unlikely to produce good results for a variety of reasons, including incomplete or contradictory evidence.

    The term may be considered pejorative. For example, Lyell D. Henry Jr. wrote that, "fringe science [is] a term also suggesting kookiness." This characterization is perhaps inspired by the eccentric behavior of many researchers of the kind known colloquially (and with considerable historical precedent) as mad scientists.

    Although most fringe science is rejected, the scientific community has come to accept some portions of it. One example of such is plate tectonics, an idea which had its origin in the fringe science of continental drift and was rejected for decades.

    The confusion between science and pseudoscience, between honest scientific error and genuine scientific discovery, is not new, and it is a permanent feature of the scientific landscape .... Acceptance of new science can come slowly.



    Some historical ideas that are considered to have been refuted by mainstream science are:

    • Wilhelm Reich's work with orgone, a physical energy he claimed to have discovered, contributed to his alienation from the psychiatric community. He was eventually sentenced to two years in a federal prison, where he died. At that time and continuing today, scientists disputed his claim that he had scientific evidence for the existence of orgone. Nevertheless, amateurs and a few fringe researchers continued to believe that orgone is real.
    • Focal infection theory (FIT) as the primary cause of systemic disease rapidly became accepted by mainstream dentistry and medicine after World War I. This acceptance was largely based upon what later turned out to be fundamentally flawed studies. As a result, millions of people were subjected to needless dental extractions and surgeries. The original studies supporting FIT began falling out of favor in the 1930s. By the late 1950s, it was regarded as a fringe theory.
    • The Clovis First theory held that the Clovis culture was the first culture in North America. It was long regarded as a mainstream theory until mounting evidence of a pre-Clovis culture discredited it.


    Relatively recent fringe sciences include:

    • Aubrey de Grey, featured in a 2006 60 Minutes special report, is studying human longevity. He calls his work "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence" (SENS). Many mainstream scientists believe his research is fringe science (especially his view of the importance of nuclear epimutations and his timeline for antiaging therapeutics). In a 2005 article in Technology Review (part of a larger series), it was stated that "SENS is highly speculative. Many of its proposals have not been reproduced, nor could they be reproduced with today's scientific knowledge and technology. Echoing Myhrvold, we might charitably say that de Grey's proposals exist in a kind of antechamber of science, where they wait (possibly in vain) for independent verification. SENS does not compel the assent of many knowledgeable scientists; but neither is it demonstrably wrong."
    • A nuclear fusion reaction called cold fusion which occurs near room temperature and pressure was reported by chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in March 1989. Numerous research efforts at the time were unable to replicate their results. Subsequently, a number of scientists have worked on cold fusion or have participated in international conferences on it. In 2004, the United States Department of Energy commissioned a panel on cold fusion to take another look at it. They wanted to determine whether their policies concerning it should be altered because of new evidence.
    • The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin holds that petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. The ubiquity of hydrocarbons in the solar system is taken as evidence that there may be a great deal more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids which migrate upward from the Earth's mantle. Abiogenic hypotheses saw a revival in the last half of the twentieth century by Russian and Ukrainian scientists. More interest was generated in the West after the 1999 publication by Thomas Gold of The Deep Hot Biosphere. Gold's version of the theory is partly based on the existence of a biosphere composed of in the Earth's crust, which might explain the existence of certain biomarkers in extracted petroleum.
    • Jim Carter's theory of "circlons"

    Responding to fringe science

    has suggested some guidelines for responding to fringe science, which, he argues, is a more difficult problem than scientific misconduct. His suggested methods include impeccable accuracy, checking cited sources, not overstating orthodox science, thorough understanding of the Wegener continental drift example, examples of orthodox science investigating radical proposals, and prepared examples of errors from fringe scientists.

    Friedlander suggests that fringe science is necessary so that mainstream science will not atrophy. Scientists must evaluate the plausibility of each new fringe claim, and certain fringe discoveries "will later graduate into the ranks of accepted" — while others "will never receive confirmation".

    Margaret Wertheim profiled many "outsider scientists" in her book Physics on the Fringe, who receive little or no attention from professional scientists. She describes all of them as trying to make sense of the world using the scientific method, but in the face of not being able to understand the complex theories of modern science. She also finds it fair that credentialed scientists do not bother spending a lot of time learning about and explaining problems with the fringe theories of uncredentialed scientists, since the authors of those theories have not taken the time to understand the mainstream theories they aim to disprove.


    Towards the end of the 20th century, some critics (such as Answers in Genesis) began to cite fringe science theories with limited support. Often their goal was to classify as controversial entire fields of scientific inquiry (notably paleoanthropology, human sexuality, evolution, geology, and paleontology) that contradict literal or fundamentalist interpretation of various sacred texts.

    Critics argue that such controversies open a window of plausibility for divine intervention and intelligent design.

    As asserts, "Too often speculative and tentative hypotheses of cutting edge science are treated as if they were scientific truths, and so accepted by a public eager for answers." But the public is ignorant of the fact that "As science progresses from ignorance to understanding it must pass through a transitionary phase of confusion and uncertainty."

    The media also play a role in propagating the belief that certain fields of science are controversial. In their 2003 paper "Optimising Public Understanding of Science and Technology in Europe: A Comparative Perspective" by Jan Nolin et al., the authors write [Chapter 5] that, "From a media perspective it is evident that controversial science sells, not only because of its dramatic value, but also since it is often connected to high-stake societal issues."

    See also

    • 13 Things That Don't Make Sense (a book by Michael Brooks)
    • The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (a book by Thomas S. Kuhn)



    • Brante Thomas; Fuller Steve; Lynch William (1993). Controversial science: from content to contention. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. OCLC 26096166. 
    • Brown George E Jr (23 October 1996). Environmental science under siege : fringe science and the 104th Congress. Washington, DC: Democratic Caucus of the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives. OCLC 57343997. 
    • ed. by Sharon M. Friedman .... (1998). Friedman Sharon M; Dunwoody Sharon; Rogers Carol L, eds. Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, New Jersey; London: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN 0-8058-2727-7. OCLC 263560777. 
    • Dutch Steven I (January 1982). "Notes on the nature of fringe science". J Geol Ed 30 (1): 6–13. ISSN 0022-1368. OCLC 92686827. 
    • Frazier Kendrick (1981). Paranormal borderlands of science. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-148-7. OCLC 251487947. 
    • Friedlander Michael W (February 1995). At the fringes of science. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-2200-6. OCLC 31046052. 
    • "CSICOP On-line: Scientifically Investigating Paranormal and Fringe Science Claims". 
    • Ben-Yehuda Nachman (1990). The politics and morality of deviance: moral panics, drug abuse, deviant science, and reversed stigmatization. SUNY series in deviance and social control. Albany: State University of New York Press. OCLC 19128625. 
    • Brooks M (2008). 13 Things That Don't Make Sense. New York: Doubleday. OCLC 213480209. Lay summary.  – Summarised by the author in The Daily Telegraph, 31 Mar 2009, Accessed 2 Apr 2009.
    • Cooke RM (1991). Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-506465-8. OCLC 22710786. 
    • de Jager Cornelis (March 1990). "Science, fringe science and pseudo-science". Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 31 (1): 31–45. Bibcode:1990QJRAS..31...31D. ISSN 0035-8738. 
    • Mauskopf SH (1979). The reception of unconventional science. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 0-89158-297-5. OCLC 4495634. 
    • Mousseau Marie-Catherine (2003). "Parapsychology: Science or Pseudo-Science?" (PDF). J Sci Expl 17 (2): 271–282. ISSN 0892-3310. 
    • Truzzi Marcello (1998). "The Perspective of Anomalistics". Anomalistics. Center for Scientific Anomalies Research. Retrieved 2009-04-14. [dead link]