Recent from talks
Fringe theory
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Fringe theory
A fringe theory is an idea or a viewpoint that differs significantly from the accepted scholarship of the time within its field. Fringe theories include the models and proposals of fringe science, as well as similar ideas in other areas of scholarship, such as the humanities. In a narrower sense, the term fringe theory is commonly used as a pejorative, roughly synonymous with the terms pseudo-scholarship and conspiracy theory. Precise definitions distinguishing widely held viewpoints and unaccepted theories are difficult to construct. Issues of false balance or false equivalence can occur when fringe theories are presented as being equal to widely accepted theories.
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. In general, the term fringe theory is closer to the popular understanding of the word theory—a hypothesis or a guess or an uncertain idea—than to the concept of an established scientific theory. Although often used in the context of fringe science, fringe theories have been discussed in fields of scholarship, such as Biblical criticism, history, finance, law, medicine, and politics. They even exist in fields of study which are themselves outside the mainstream, such as cryptozoology, or parapsychology.
Fringe theories meet with varying levels of academic acceptance. Financial journalist Alexander Davidson characterized fringe theories as "peddled by a small band of staunch supporters," but not necessarily without merit. Daniel N. Robinson described them as occupying "a limbo between the decisive dead end and the ultimately credible productive theory." However, the term is also used pejoratively; advocates of fringe theories are dismissed as cranks or crackpots who are out of touch with reality. In this sense, there is some overlap with other dismissive labels, such as pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, and pseudoscience. Describing ideas as fringe theories may be less pejorative than describing them as pseudoscholarship; while it is unlikely that anyone would identify their own work as pseudoscience, astrologer David Cochrane is "proud to be a fringe theorist".
The term is also used to describe conspiracy theories. According to Richard Hofstadter, such theories "explain" historical or political events as the work of a powerful secret organization — "a vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network". The conspirators are possessed of "almost superhuman power and cunning", as described by historian Esther Webman. 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 pseudoscientist Jim Carter.
Wertheim wrote that a "credentialed physicist ... can generally recognize a fringe theory by sight" when it comes in the form of an eccentrically formatted manuscript; however, it is difficult to distinguish between fringe theories and respected minority theories. A workable definition of what constitutes a fringe theory may not actually be possible. This is an aspect of the demarcation problem that occurs within both science and the humanities.
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. Later authors, including Richard Duschl, expanded these categories. Under Duschl's system, a fringe theory is a mix of legitimate new ideas and pseudoscience; it awaits analysis to determine whether it will pass into the "frontier" or be rejected entirely.
Most fringe theories never become part of established scholarship. Rejected ideas may help to refine mainstream thought, but most outside theories are simply incorrect and have no wider impact. Nevertheless, some ideas gradually receive wider acceptance until they are no longer viewed as fringe theories, and occasionally, 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.
Other ideas that have made the transition include the germ theory of disease, Kristian Birkeland's explanation of the aurora, prions, and complexity theory in project management. Behavioral finance was described in 2002 as "at the fringe of ... modern financial theory", but it has since been widely applied in many fields of business. Sometimes the change is not gradual but represents 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 "fringe theory of law" to an accepted and mainstream cause for legal action in the state.
Hub AI
Fringe theory AI simulator
(@Fringe theory_simulator)
Fringe theory
A fringe theory is an idea or a viewpoint that differs significantly from the accepted scholarship of the time within its field. Fringe theories include the models and proposals of fringe science, as well as similar ideas in other areas of scholarship, such as the humanities. In a narrower sense, the term fringe theory is commonly used as a pejorative, roughly synonymous with the terms pseudo-scholarship and conspiracy theory. Precise definitions distinguishing widely held viewpoints and unaccepted theories are difficult to construct. Issues of false balance or false equivalence can occur when fringe theories are presented as being equal to widely accepted theories.
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. In general, the term fringe theory is closer to the popular understanding of the word theory—a hypothesis or a guess or an uncertain idea—than to the concept of an established scientific theory. Although often used in the context of fringe science, fringe theories have been discussed in fields of scholarship, such as Biblical criticism, history, finance, law, medicine, and politics. They even exist in fields of study which are themselves outside the mainstream, such as cryptozoology, or parapsychology.
Fringe theories meet with varying levels of academic acceptance. Financial journalist Alexander Davidson characterized fringe theories as "peddled by a small band of staunch supporters," but not necessarily without merit. Daniel N. Robinson described them as occupying "a limbo between the decisive dead end and the ultimately credible productive theory." However, the term is also used pejoratively; advocates of fringe theories are dismissed as cranks or crackpots who are out of touch with reality. In this sense, there is some overlap with other dismissive labels, such as pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, and pseudoscience. Describing ideas as fringe theories may be less pejorative than describing them as pseudoscholarship; while it is unlikely that anyone would identify their own work as pseudoscience, astrologer David Cochrane is "proud to be a fringe theorist".
The term is also used to describe conspiracy theories. According to Richard Hofstadter, such theories "explain" historical or political events as the work of a powerful secret organization — "a vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network". The conspirators are possessed of "almost superhuman power and cunning", as described by historian Esther Webman. 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 pseudoscientist Jim Carter.
Wertheim wrote that a "credentialed physicist ... can generally recognize a fringe theory by sight" when it comes in the form of an eccentrically formatted manuscript; however, it is difficult to distinguish between fringe theories and respected minority theories. A workable definition of what constitutes a fringe theory may not actually be possible. This is an aspect of the demarcation problem that occurs within both science and the humanities.
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. Later authors, including Richard Duschl, expanded these categories. Under Duschl's system, a fringe theory is a mix of legitimate new ideas and pseudoscience; it awaits analysis to determine whether it will pass into the "frontier" or be rejected entirely.
Most fringe theories never become part of established scholarship. Rejected ideas may help to refine mainstream thought, but most outside theories are simply incorrect and have no wider impact. Nevertheless, some ideas gradually receive wider acceptance until they are no longer viewed as fringe theories, and occasionally, 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.
Other ideas that have made the transition include the germ theory of disease, Kristian Birkeland's explanation of the aurora, prions, and complexity theory in project management. Behavioral finance was described in 2002 as "at the fringe of ... modern financial theory", but it has since been widely applied in many fields of business. Sometimes the change is not gradual but represents 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 "fringe theory of law" to an accepted and mainstream cause for legal action in the state.