The OFFICIAL "Fringe Science" thread...

[smokey]

Ok... before you all go on about how this shouldn't be in the natural sciences sub-forum I want you to know one thing. I came across the term "fringe science" while reading up something on Wikipedia about a week or so ago. Apparently, fringe science is science that is not currently PC, but is not wholly based on wishful thinking (which is what pseudoscience is...). Wiki gives a few examples of sciences that were considered fringe and later accepted by the world at large, but the only one I remember is Paleontology.

So... today I get a new series from a mate of mine. Fringe. deals with all these fantastic things that are considered impossible but there they are (time travel, teleportation etc etc). That gives me the urge to come here and ask all you scientists a whole bunch of questions. Which I will stagger so that I am able to absorb all the info which you will hopefully give me (and make this into a lengthy discussion).

So... my first question is this... what is considered fringe science today? What disciplines are not accepted by the general science community, but are not wholly byproducts of an over active imagination?

 

[Gaz{M}]

Fringe science is to Science what Intelligent Design is to Evolution.

 

[smokey]

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.[4]

Some of today's widely-held theories (such as plate tectonics) had their origins as fringe science, and were held in a negative opinion for decades.[5] It is noted that:

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.[6]

The categorical boundaries between fringe science and pseudoscience are widely disputed. Fringe science is seen by most scientists as rational, but unlikely. A valid fringe science may avoid recognition by a scientific consensus for a variety of reasons, including incomplete or contradictory evidence.[7] Fringe science can be a protoscience that is not yet accepted by the vast majority of scientists. A fringe scientist may make observations through the scientific method. Whether a fringe science is accepted by mainstream scientists has largely been based on the quality of the discoveries made by a given fringe science.

The phrase "fringe science" is sometimes considered pejorative. For example, Lyell D. Henry, Jr. wrote that "'fringe science' [is] a term also suggesting kookiness."[8] This belief may be inspired by eccentric, groundbreaking researchers on the fringe of science (colloquially known as mad scientists [9]).

[edit] Comparisons

Fringe science can be distinguished from other controversial fields of study as follows:

* Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience is notoriously lacking in rigorous application of the scientific method, and reproducibility is typically a problem. This is not so in fringe science.
* Junk science - Junk science is used to describe agenda-driven research that ignores certain standard methodologies and practices in an attempt to secure a given result from an experiment. Fringe science, as in standard methodology, proceeds from theory to conclusion with no attempt to direct or coax the result.

The bolded statements make it clear that fringe science is not without it's observations or lack of evidence - more to quality of evidence or how it fits in with the world view.

Seeing as there are people on this forum that are deeply involved in the scientific community and could give an answer as to what sounds rational, but is unlikely (at this stage).

IF you think modern science has all the answers and that there is nothing more out there (and if you think new discoveries are all automatically accepted) well then you live in a nice world.

Some examples to get anyone else interested in contributing to this discussion...

Relatively recent fringe sciences include:

* Aubrey de Grey, featured in a 2006 60 Minutes special report, is working on advanced studies in human longevity.[10] Many mainstream scientists believe his research, especially de Grey's view on the importance of nuclear (epi)mutations and his purported timeline for antiaging therapeutics, constitutes "fringe science."[2] In an article released in a 2006 issue of the magazine Technology Review (part of a larger series), it was written that, "SENS [De Grey's hypothesis] 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."[11]
* A nuclear fusion reaction called cold fusion occurring 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 these results.[12] Subsequently, a number of scientists with a variety of credentials have worked on the problem or participated in international conferences on cold fusion. In 2004, the United States Department of Energy decided to take another look at cold fusion to determine if their policies towards the subject should be altered due to new experimental evidence, and commissioned a panel on cold fusion.
* The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin holds that natural 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 mantle. Abiogenic hypotheses saw a revival in the last half of the twentieth century by Russian and Ukrainian scientists, and more interest has been generated in the West after the publication in 1999 of The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold. Gold's version of the hypothesis partly is based on the existence of a biosphere composed of thermophile bacteria in the earth's crust, which may explain the existence of certain biomarkers in extracted petroleum.

Well... there we go...

 

[BattleMoose]

I actually had to read up on exactly what is meant by fringe science, and the best definition that I could come across is generally, not popularly accepted or liked.

Which is a very strange adjective to use when describing science, as science tries as best it is able (especially natural science) to be devoid of opinion. To put it bluntly, opinion and popular consent has no bearing or effect on the nature of our universe.

Science is science, if people don't like an idea, then they need to build a bridge and get over it, or go live with the amish.

P.S Although popular consent does become increasingly important when a society wants to start implementing unpopular ideas.

 

[w1z4rd]

This is pseudoscience not real science. It should not be in this section. The world of fantasy (before it comes reality) should be in the right section so not to confuse the situation.

The only reason I am anal about this is because of how religious people will abuse topics like this. Weve already got one person heavily polluting this section I would hate to see it go more down the drain.

To be scientific something has to comply with the scientific method....

While some of this stuff may be possible in the future.. its still pseudoscience

Please can we have this thread moved?

 

[BattleMoose]

Fringe science and pseudoscience are two very different things, according to their definitions anyway.

 

[R/SGT]

I am not so sure, science has a way of supprising us.

Could it not be viewed as a scientific theory that still has to be proven.

Cold fusion could be a good example
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16820-neutron-tracks-revive-hopes-for-cold-fusion.html

There have been other fringe ideas that have become possible

Teleportation
Teleporter sends ions on long-distance journey
WE MAY never zap Jeff Goldblum across a room, but this feat of quantum teleportation is impressive nevertheless.

A team in the US has built a teleporter capable of sending the state of ytterbium ions from one side of the lab to the other; something that until now had only been possible with photons. The team say the technique could dramatically increase the distance over which quantum information can be sent.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...orter-sends-ions-on-longdistance-journey.html

 

[andres101]

Fringe is a great series, but IMO it is sci-fi/comedy.

@w1z4rd - just a few years ago, using laser beams as weapons, was considered to be science fiction. this morning I received an email about a 100kW laser the US army is testing, exactly for this purpose.

 

[smokey]

See this is what I'm talking bout. That teleportation (even if it's just ions) or the laser beam weapon. This thread is hopefully areligious - ID AFAIC is a philosophy and rightly belongs in the philosophy section. This thread is about the possibilities (theoretical) that are not probable in today's time. Pseudoscience is something else entirely...

@BAttlemoose - Don't you think science that provides contradictory results becuase we may not have the knowledge currently to explain said results (or mayhap the tools to measure results correctly) is a better explanation than the "general consesus" theory you got going there? I mean, creationism vs darwinism is far removed from matter teleportation and time travel (to use the most popular examples)...

@andres - Fringe is not a comedy... it a criminal thriller/sci-fi/cyberpunk-ish. Maybe you are thinking of Eureka?

To everyone else... just to clarify what I mean't here. To get feedback from real scientists (and people who are heavily read on the subject) as to what fields might be considered plausible, yet at the same time are highly improbable based on our current (and in some opinions, very limited) knowledge of science (in general). Not just physics, but chemistry, biology etc etc.

I only put it here because this is where anyone with scientific backgrounds is likely to post. To put this in current affairs is pointless and likewise in philosophical discussions (seeing as this is not philosophy)...

 

[w1z4rd]

Fringe is a great series, but IMO it is sci-fi/comedy.

@w1z4rd - just a few years ago, using laser beams as weapons, was considered to be science fiction. this morning I received an email about a 100kW laser the US army is testing, exactly for this purpose.

You mean a few decades... Sure if we continue using your logic why dont we include the cannon of Star Wars and Star Trek as "science" as well?

I understand how science fiction most often becomes science fact, and before we can make it we need to imagine it...

BUT (theres a but)

Until such time as it becomes scientific (it complies with the scientific method).. its not science... its fantasy.

This keeps crystal and religious and ufo people from confusing 'what we know to be true' from 'what we wish to be true'.

This is a very important line that should not be crossed.. otherwise.. by your updated version of science.. basically anything can pass itself off as science.. which at the end of the day confuses people.. and totally screws with real education.

 

[smokey]

You mean a few decades... Sure if we continue using your logic why dont we include the cannon of Star Wars and Star Trek as "science" as well?

I understand how science fiction most often becomes science fact, and before we can make it we need to imagine it...

BUT (theres a but)

Until such time as it becomes scientific (it complies with the scientific method).. its not science... its fantasy.

This keeps crystal and religious and ufo people from confusing 'what we know to be true' from 'what we wish to be true'.

This is a very important line that should not be crossed.. otherwise.. by your updated version of science.. basically anything can pass itself off as science.. which at the end of the day confuses people.. and totally screws with real education.

What about things that we belive to be true, but do not have a totally accurate way of measuring or explaining. Faith-based issues excluded, ofcourse.

 

[w1z4rd]

What about things that we belive to be true, but do not have a totally accurate way of measuring or explaining. Faith-based issues excluded, ofcourse.

Can you give me some examples?

 

[smokey]

Can you give me some examples?

Apart from the three examples shown by Wikipedia - no. Then again, the reason I started this thread is to find out what is out there.

1. theory of abiogenic petroleum
2. human longevity (something about SENS, don't have time to read up on it right now, but will do)
3. cold fusion

 

[R/SGT]

You could also add

Telekinesis

Telepathy

Cryonics
It is the low-temperature preservation of humans and animals that can no longer be sustained by contemporary medicine until resuscitation may be possible in the future.

 

[w1z4rd]

Apart from the three examples shown by Wikipedia - no. Then again, the reason I started this thread is to find out what is out there.

1. theory of abiogenic petroleum

We dont know that to be true, in fact.. I only thought it was a bunch of Russian scientists who got it all wrong who believed in this one. Its not a good example.. and its not a real scientific theory.. its a "alternative hypothesis". Which is light years away from being a real theory.

Even wiki is clear on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

2. human longevity (something about SENS, don't have time to read up on it right now, but will do)

You are going to have to be specific. The science behind increasing the life span is not confusing, theyre doing real science in this area.. until I know the specifics of what you are talking about I dont know how to respond to this.

3. cold fusion

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/23/1853219
Lol.. an article about it today.. and if it comes true.. FANTASTIC.. and I dont mind talking about this as long as its kept real.. but I will quote from that slashdot article:

Steven Krivit, editor of the New Energy Times, has been following the cold fusion debate for many years and also spoke at the ACS conference. 'Their hypothesis as to a fusion mechanism I think is on thin ice ... you get into physics fantasies rather quickly and this is an unfortunate distraction from their excellent empirical work,' he told New Scientist. Krivit thinks cold fusion remains science fiction. Like many in the field, he prefers to categorize the work as evidence of 'low-energy nuclear reactions,' and says it can be explained without relying on nuclear fusion.

 

[w1z4rd]

You could also add

Telekinesis

Pseudoscience

Telepathy

Pseudoscience

Cryonics
It is the low-temperature preservation of humans and animals that can no longer be sustained by contemporary medicine until resuscitation may be possible in the future.

They can do it with some animals.. like frogs and stuff.. but to kill a human (freeze) and bring that person back to life (reanimation) is still very much pseudoscience.

 

[BattleMoose]

@BAttlemoose - Don't you think science that provides contradictory results becuase we may not have the knowledge currently to explain said results (or mayhap the tools to measure results correctly) is a better explanation than the "general consesus" theory you got going there? I mean, creationism vs darwinism is far removed from matter teleportation and time travel (to use the most popular examples)...

Erh, firstly its not a theory, its a defintion that I was proposing based on my understanding of what is meant by fringe science. To be perfectly clear, fringe science, as per the definition that I gave earlier, is still science, in every way that science is science. And it shouldnt be marginalised just because some people don't like an idea or think its silly.

Don't you think science that provides contradictory results becuase we may not have the knowledge currently to explain said results (or mayhap the tools to measure results correctly)

This is pretty much how all science everywhere tends to work.

 

[smokey]

You could also add

Telekinesis

Telepathy

Cryonics
It is the low-temperature preservation of humans and animals that can no longer be sustained by contemporary medicine until resuscitation may be possible in the future.

AFAIK, TK & TP are part of pseudoscience for now, as there is absolutely no evidence backing them up. Cryonics on the other hand is something theorised and really very plausible if not for that one little snag at the end. So I would reckon that out of those three cryonics is the one which is on "the fringe" of science.

 

[smokey]

Erh, firstly its not a theory, its a defintion that I was proposing based on my understanding of what is meant by fringe science. To be perfectly clear, fringe science, as per the definition that I gave earlier, is still science, in every way that science is science. And it shouldnt be marginalised just because some people don't like an idea or think its silly.

Sorry mate, duly noted!

 

[w1z4rd]

Erh, firstly its not a theory, its a defintion that I was proposing based on my understanding of what is meant by fringe science. To be perfectly clear, fringe science, as per the definition that I gave earlier, is still science, in every way that science is science. And it shouldnt be marginalised just because some people don't like an idea or think its silly.

If it complies with the scientific method.. its science. if not its not. Its that simple.