7/25/2019 Fringe Theory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fringe-theory 1/5

Fringe theory

A  fringe theory  is an idea or viewpoint held by a small

group of supporters. Fringe theories include the models

and proposals of   fringe science  as well as similar ideas

in other areas of scholarship, such as the  humanities.

The term is commonly used in a narrower sense as a

pejorative roughly synonymous with  pseudo-scholarship.

Precise definitions that distinguish between widely held

viewpoints, fringe theories, and pseudo-scholarship are

difficult to construct because of the demarcation prob-

lem. Issues of false equivalence can occur when fringe

theories are presented as being equal to widely acceptedtheories.

1 Definitions

Part of the periodic table , according to Jim Carter 's fringe theory

Fringe theories are ideas which depart significantly from

a prevailing or   mainstream   theory. A fringe theory

is neither a majority opinion nor that of a respected

minority.[1][2] The term in general is closer to the pop-

ular understanding of the word   theory—a   hypothesis,

guess, or uncertain idea—than to the concept of an estab-

lished scientific theory.[3] Although the term is often used

within the context of fringe science, fringe theories have

been discussed in diverse areas of scholarship, includ-

ing   Biblical criticism,[4] history,[5][6] finance,[7] law,[8]

medicine,[9][10] and politics.[11] They even exist in fieldsof study which are themselves outside the mainstream,

such as cryptozoology[12] and parapsychology.[13]

Fringe theories meet with varying levels of academic

acceptance.[14] Financial journalist  Alexander Davidson

characterized fringe theories as “peddled by a small

band of staunch supporters,” but not necessarily with-

out merit.[7] Daniel N. Robinson   described them as

occupying “a limbo between the decisive dead end

and the ultimately credible productive theory.”[15] How-

ever, the term is also used   pejoratively; advocates

of fringe theories are dismissed as   cranks   or crack-

pots who are out of touch with reality.[16][17] In this

sense, there is some overlap with other dismissive la-bels, such as   pseudoarchaeology,[6][18] pseudohistory,[6]

and   pseudoscience.[19] Describing ideas as fringe the-

ories may be less pejorative than describing them as

pseudoscholarship;[20] while it is unlikely that anyone

would identify their own work as pseudoscience,[21]

astrologer David Cochrane   is “proud to be a fringe

theorist.”[22]

The term is also used to describe conspiracy theories.

Such theories “explain” historical or political events as the

work of a powerful secret organization — “a vast, insidi-

ous, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial

network,” according to Richard Hofstadter.[23]

The con-spirators are possessed of “almost superhuman power and

cunning,” as described by historian Esther Webman.[24]

Margaret Wertheim suggested that fringe theories should

be treated in a manner similar to outsider art. In 2003

she curated an exhibit at the  Santa Monica Museum of

Art which was dedicated to the work of fringe physicist

Jim Carter.[25]

1.1 Demarcation problem

Wertheim wrote that a “credentialed physicist ... can gen-erally recognize a fringe theory by sight” when it comes

in the form of an eccentrically formatted manuscript.[16]

However, it is difficult to distinguish between fringe

theories and respected minority theories. A work-

able definition of what constitutes a fringe theory may

not actually be possible.[1][2] This is an aspect of the

demarcation problem that occurs within both science and

the humanities.[26]

Geologist   Steven Dutch   approached the demarcation

problem by dividing scientific ideas into three categories:

fringe, frontier, and center, based upon their adherence to

scientific methodology and their level of acceptance.[27]

Later authors, including Richard Duschl, expanded these

categories. Under Duschl’s system, a fringe theory is a

1

7/25/2019 Fringe Theory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fringe-theory 2/5

2   4 REFERENCES 

mix of legitimate new ideas and pseudoscience; it awaits

analysis to determine whether it will pass into the “fron-

tier” or be rejected entirely.[28]

2 Mainstream impact

Alfred Wegener advanced the theory of continental drift, a fringetheory which was later adopted by mainstream science

The majority of fringe theories never become part of es-

tablished scholarship.[17] Rejected ideas may help to re-

fine mainstream thought,[29] but most outside theories are

simply incorrect and have no wider impact.[17] Neverthe-

less, some ideas do gradually receive wider acceptance

until they are no longer viewed as fringe theories. Occa-

sionally such theories even become the mainstream view.

A widely known example is Alfred Wegener's theory of

continental drift, which eventually served as the basis for

the accepted model of plate tectonics.[17][30] Other ideaswhich have made the transition include the germ theory

of disease,[31] Birkeland’s   explanation of the  aurora,[32]

prions,[17] and   complexity theory   in   project manage-

ment.[33] Behavioral finance   was described in a 2002

journal article as “at the fringe of ... modern financial

theory”,[34] but it has since been widely applied in many

fields of business.[35]

Sometimes this change is not gradual; in such cases it rep-

resents a paradigm shift. Writing for the New York Law

Journal , Andrew Bluestone described how a single court

case in New York changed the use of an obscure common

law statute regarding attorney misconduct from a “fringetheory of law” to an accepted, mainstream cause for legal

action in the state.[8]

Similarly, former mainstream theories such as phlogiston

and luminiferous aether may be superseded and relegated

to the fringe.[36]

Such shifts between fringe theory and accepted theories

are not always clear-cut. In 1963, Reuben Fine wrote that

mainstream psychology had adopted aspects of SigmundFreud's psychoanalysis but that many students of the dis-

cipline believed psychoanalysis to be a “lunatic fringe the-

ory which has little to do with scientific psychology”,[37]

and psychoanalysis is now generally considered discred-

ited, according to author Frederick Crews who stated, “if

you consult psychology faculties in top American univer-

sities, you will find almost no one now who believes in the

Freudian system of thought. As a research paradigm it’s

pretty much dead.”[38]

3 False balance

The news media may play a role in the dissemination and

popularization of fringe theories. The media sometimes

reduce complex topics to two sides and frame issues in

terms of an underdog challenger fighting the mainstream

theory.   Biblical scholar Matthew Collins wrote that this

simplification can be “both misrepresentative and mis-

leading, especially when a far-fetched fringe theory is,

in the name of neutrality and fairness, elevated to the

role of equally legitimate contender.”[4] This false equiv-

alence can become the expected media behavior. When

The New York Times   published an article strongly sup-

porting the mainstream scientific stance on thethiomersal

controversy,[39] others in the media condemned theTimes 

for portraying the alleged vaccine-autism connection as a

fringe theory, calling the article a “hit piece”.[40]

Issues of false balance also arise in education, espe-

cially in the context of the  creation–evolution contro-

versy.   Creationism has been discredited as a fringe the-

ory akin to  Lamarckism or the cosmology of  Immanuel

Velikovsky's  Worlds in Collision. Because advocates of

creationism want schools to present only their preferred

alternative, not the entire variety of minority views, they

have attempted to portray scholarship on the issue as be-

ing equally divided between only two models.[41][42]

4 References

[1] Jasanoff, Sheila (1992). “What judges should know about

the sociology of science”.   Jurimetrics : 345–359.

[2]   Rundlett 2013, p. 5-88.

[3] Morrison, David (2005).  “Only a Theory? Framing the

Evolution/Creation Issue”.  Skeptical Inquirer  29  (6): 35–

41.

[4] Collins, Matthew A. (2011). “Examining the Reception

and Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Some Possibilities

7/25/2019 Fringe Theory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fringe-theory 3/5

3

for Future Investigation”.   Dead Sea Discoveries  18   (2):

226–246. doi:10.1163/156851711X582541.

[5] Joseph, Simon J. (2012). “Jesus in India? Trans-

gressing Social and Religious Boundaries”.   Journal of 

the American Academy of Religion   80   (1): 161–199.

doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfr094 .

[6] Fritze, Ronald H. (2009). “On the Perils and Pleasures of

Confronting Pseudohistory”.  Historically Speaking 10 (5):

2–5. doi:10.1353/hsp.0.0067.

[7]  Davidson 2002, pp. 125–126.

[8] Bluestone, Andrew Lavoott (25 September 2014).

“Judiciary Law §487 Cases on the Rise After 'Amalfi-

tano'".  New York Law Review.

[9] Sabbagh, Karl (1985–86). “The Psychopathology of

Fringe Medicine”.  Skeptical Inquirer  10   (2): 154–164.

[10]   Batt 1996, p. 206.

[11]   Quinn 2012, p. 143.

[12]   Shiel 2013, p. 157.

[13] Stokes, Douglas M. (1999). “Reviews of Scholarly

Books—Christine Hardy; Networks of Meaning: A Bridge

Between Mind and Matter ".  Journal of the American So-

ciety for Psychical Research 93   (4): 366–372.

[14] Abrams, Eleanor; Wandersee, James H. (1995).

“How to infuse actual scientific research practices

into science classroom instruction”.   International 

Journal of Science Education   17   (6): 683–694.

doi:10.1080/0950069950170601.

[15] Robinson, Daniel N. (2007). “Theoretical Psychology:

What Is It and Who Needs It?".   Theory & Psychology

17  (2): 187–188.  doi:10.1177/0959354307075042.

[16]   Wertheim 2011, p. 4.

[17] Timmer, John (2009-11-09).  “Examining science on the

fringes: vital, but generally wrong”.   Ars Technica. Re-

trieved 2014-09-25.

[18] Magnusson, Magnus (1974-02-02).   “Mortar-board

Cagney”.  The Spectator   (7597): 16–17.

[19]  Thurs & Numbers 2013, p. 138.

[20]   Fritze 2009, p. 18.

[21] Hansson, Sven Ove. “Science and Pseudo-Science”. In

Zalta, Edward N.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso-

 phy (Spring 2014 ed.).

[22] Cochrane, David (2011-06-09).   “Proud to be a Fringe

Theorist”.  Cosmic Patterns . Retrieved 2014-09-27.

[23] Hofstadter, Richard (1964). “The paranoid style in Amer-

ican politics”.   Harper’s Magazine 229   (1374): 77–86.

[24]  Webman 2011, p. 8.

[25]   Wertheim 2011, pp. 11–12, 44.

[26]   Hansson 2013, pp. 64–65.

[27] Dutch, Steven I. (1982). “Notes on the Nature of Fringe

Science”.  Journal of Geological Education 30  (1): 6–13.

ISSN 0022-1368.

[28]  Erduran & Dagher 2014, p. 117.

[29]  Ullmann-Margalit 2006, p. 20.

[30]   Bell 2005, p. 138.

[31]  Velasquez-Manoff 2013, p. 40.

[32]   Jago 2002, pp. 270—272.

[33]  Curlee & Gordon 2013, p. 198.

[34] Leong, Clint Tan Chee; Seiler, Michael J.; Lane, Mark

(2002). “Explaining Apparent Stock Market Anoma-

lies: Irrational Exuberance or Archetypal Human Psy-

chology?".  Journal of Wealth Management   4   (4): 8–23.

doi:10.3905/jwm.2002.320422.

[35] Steverman, Ben (2014-04-07).   “Manipulate Me: The

Booming Business in Behavioral Finance”.   Bloomberg.

Retrieved 2014-09-25.

[36]   Shermer 2013, pp. 220–221.

[37]   Fine 2013, p. 228.

[38]   PBS NewsHour: Professor Frederick Crews , PBS, 6 Jan

1999, retrieved 26 May 2016

[39] Harris, Gardiner; O'Connor, Anahad (2005-06-25).  “On

Autism’s Cause, It’s Parents vs. Research”.   New York 

Times . Retrieved 2014-09-25.

[40]   Offit 2010, p. 182.

[41] Edwords, Frederick (1980). “Why creationism should not

be taught as science”.   Creation/Evolution Journal  1  (1):

2–23.

[42] Wexler, Jay D. (2006). “Intelligent Design and the First

Amendment: A Response”.  Washington University Law

Review 84: 63–98.

5 Bibliography

•   Batt, Sharon (1996) [1994].   Patient No More: The

Politics of Breast Cancer   (Australian ed.). SpinifexPress.  ISBN 978-1-875559-39-8.

•   Bell, David (2005).   Science, Technology, and Cul-

ture. Issues in Cultural and Media Studies. Open

University Press. ISBN 978-0-335-21326-9.

•   Curlee, Wanda; Gordon, Robert Lee (2013).   Suc-

cessful Program Management: Complexity Theory,

Communication, and Leadership. Best Practices and

Advances in Program Management Series. Auer-

bach.  ISBN 978-1-4665-6879-2.

•   Davidson, Alexander (2002).   How to Win in a

Volatile Stock Market: The Definitive Guide to In-vestment Bargain Hunting   (2nd ed.). Kogan Page.

ISBN 978-0-7494-3803-6.

7/25/2019 Fringe Theory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fringe-theory 4/5

4   5 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

•   Erduran, Sibel; Dagher, Zoubeida (2013).   Recon-

ceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Educa-

tion: Scientific Knowledge, Practices and Other Fam-

ily Categories . Contemporary Trends and Issues in

Science Education. Springer.   ISBN 978-94-017-

9056-7.

•  Fine, Reuben (2013) [1963].  Freud: A Critical Re-

evaluation of his Theories  (Reprint ed.). Routledge.

ISBN 978-0-415-71708-3.

•   Fritze, Ronald H. (2009).   Invented Knowledge: 

False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions .

Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1-86189-430-4.

•   Hansson, Sven Ove (2013). “Defining Pseudo-

science and Science”. In   Pigliucci, Massimo;

Boudry, Maarten.  Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Re-

considering the Demarcation Problem. University

of Chicago Press. pp. 61–78.   ISBN 978-0-226-

05196-3.

•   Jago, Lucy (2002) [2001].   The Northern Lights 

(Reprint ed.). Vintage. ISBN 978-0-375-70882-4.

•   Offit, Paul A. (2010).   Autism’s False Prophets: 

Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a

Cure. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-

14637-1.

•   Quinn, Paul (2012). “Anti-Catholicism, Islamopho-

bia, and Modern Christian Multi-Media”. In Ansari,

Humayun; Hafez, Farid.  From the Far Right to the

Mainstream: Islamophobia in Party Politics and the

Media. Campus Verlag. pp. 130–153.   ISBN 978-

3-593-39648-4.

•   Rundlett, Ellsworth T., III (2013) [1991].  Maximiz-

ing Damages in Small Personal Injury Cases   (Revi-

sion ed.). James Publishing.   ISBN 978-0-938065-

55-5.

•   Shermer, Michael (2013). “Science and Pseudo-

science”. In Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten.

Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the De-marcation Problem. University of Chicago Press.

pp. 203–224. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3.

•  Shiel, Lisa A. (2013).  Forbidden Bigfoot: Exposing

the Controversial Truth about Sasquatch, Stick Signs,

UFOs, Human Origins, and the Strange Phenomena

in Our Own Backyards . Jacobsville Books.   ISBN

978-1-934631-29-4.

•   Thurs, Daniel L.; Numbers, Ronald L. (2013).

“Science, Pseudoscience, and Science Falsely So-

Called”. In Pigliucci, Massimo;  Boudry, Maarten.

Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the De-marcation Problem. University of Chicago Press.

pp. 121–144. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3.

•  Ullmann-Margalit, Edna (2006).  Out of the Cave: A

Philosophical Inquiry into the Dead Sea Scrolls Re-

search. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-

02223-2.

•  Velasquez-Manoff, Moises (2013) [2012].  An Epi-

demic of Absence: A New Way of UnderstandingAllergies and Autoimmune Diseases   (Reprint ed.).

Scribner.  ISBN 978-1-4391-9939-8.

•   Webman, Esther (2011). “Introduction—hate and

absurdity: the impact of The Protocols of the Elders 

of Zion". In Webman, Esther. The Global Impact of 

the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: A Century-Old 

Myth. Routledge Jewish Studies Series. Routledge.

pp. 1–24. ISBN 978-0-415-59892-7.

•  Wertheim, Margaret (2011).  Physics on the Fringe: 

Smoke Rings, Circlons, and Alternative Theories of 

Everything. Walker Books.   ISBN 978-0-8027-7872-7.

7/25/2019 Fringe Theory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fringe-theory 5/5

5

6 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

6.1 Text

•  Fringe theory  Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theory?oldid=722339769 Contributors:  Gandalf61, Auric, Nunh-huh, Lore-

master, OwenBlacker, Salimfadhley, Vsmith, Dbachmann, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, VoluntarySlave, Aarghdvaark, BD2412, Naraht,

Jrtayloriv, Warshy, Sandstein, Finell, SmackBot, B.Wind, Blueboar, Tim Q. Wells, Second Quantization, Smatprt, Americanhero, An-

drewaskew, Hrafn, Wahrmund, Tom Reedy, JL-Bot, SamuelTheGhost, John Pons, Rhododendrites, Editor2020, Jytdog, Dbrisinda, C6541,

Verbal, Yobot, Amble, AnomieBOT, Srich32977, Logos, AJCham, Atomic blunder, Nederlandse Leeuw, GoingBatty, Solomonfromfin-

land, ClueBot NG, Technovative, Helpful Pixie Bot, Northamerica1000, The Almightey Drill, Squeamish Ossifrage, Oct13, Autodidaktos,

SJ Defender, Portesamo217, Monkbot, Adam (Wiki Ed), Ah3kal, Jerodlycett, Jessicaarroyo, Permstrump, RandomScholar30 and Anony-

mous: 9

6.2 Images

•  File:Alfred_Wegener_ca.1924-30.jpg   Source:    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Alfred_Wegener_ca.

1924-30.jpg   License:    Public domain   Contributors:    Bildarchiv Foto Marburg   Aufnahme-Nr. 426.294   Original artist:    Un-

known<a href='//www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4233718' title='wikidata:Q4233718'><img alt='wikidata:Q4233718' src='https:

//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Wikidata-logo.svg/20px-Wikidata-logo.svg.png' width='20' height='11'

srcset='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Wikidata-logo.svg/30px-Wikidata-logo.svg.png 1.5x,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Wikidata-logo.svg/40px-Wikidata-logo.svg.png 2x' data-file-width='1050'

data-file-height='590' /></a >•   File:Circlon_periodic_table_excerpt.jpeg   Source:    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/Circlon_periodic_table_excerpt.

jpeg License:  Fair use Contributors: 

http://theiff.org/exhibits/images/physicsonthefringe_clip_image001.jpg Original artist:  ?

6.3 Content license

•   Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0