A fringe theory is an idea or a viewpoint which 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; it is roughly synonymous with the term
pseudo-scholarship. Precise definitions that make distinctions between widely held viewpoints, fringe theories, and pseudo-scholarship are difficult to construct because of the
demarcation problem. Issues of
false balance or
false equivalence can occur when fringe theories are presented as being equal to widely accepted theories.
Definitions
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] 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.[3] Although often used in the context of
fringe science, fringe theories have been discussed in fields of scholarship, such as
Biblical criticism,[4] history,[5][6] finance,[7] law,[8] medicine,[9][10] and politics.[11] They even exist in fields of 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 without merit.[7]Daniel N. Robinson described them as occupying "a limbo between the decisive dead end and the ultimately credible productive theory."[15] However, the term is also used
pejoratively; advocates of fringe theories are dismissed as
cranks or crackpots who are out of touch with reality.[16][17] In this sense, there is some overlap with other dismissive labels, such as
pseudoarchaeology,[6][18]pseudohistory,[6] and
pseudoscience.[19][20] Describing ideas as fringe theories may be less pejorative than describing them as
pseudoscholarship;[21] while it is unlikely that anyone would identify their own work as pseudoscience,[22]astrologerDavid Cochrane is "proud to be a fringe theorist."[23]
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, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network," according to
Richard Hofstadter.[24] The conspirators are possessed of "almost superhuman power and cunning," as described by historian
Esther Webman.[25]
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.[16] 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.[1][2] This is an aspect of the
demarcation problem that occurs within both
science and the
humanities.[27]
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.[28] 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.[29]
Mainstream acceptance of fringe theories
Most fringe theories never become part of established scholarship.[17] Rejected ideas may help to refine mainstream thought,[30] but most outside theories are simply incorrect and have no wider impact.[17] 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.
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, mainstream cause for legal action in the state.[8]
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
Sigmund Freud's
psychoanalysis but that many students of the discipline believed psychoanalysis to be a "lunatic fringe theory which has little to do with scientific psychology,"[38] and psychoanalysis is now generally considered discredited, according to author
Frederick Crews who stated, "if you consult psychology faculties in top American universities, you will find almost no one now who believes in the Freudian system of thought. As a research paradigm it's pretty much dead."[39]
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 misleading, 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 equivalence can become the expected media behavior. When The New York Times published an article strongly supporting the mainstream scientific stance on
thiomersal and vaccines,[40] others in the media condemned the Times for portraying the
alleged vaccine-autism connection as a fringe theory, calling the article a "hit piece".[41]
Issues of false balance also arise in education, especially in the context of the
creation–evolution controversy.
Creationism has been discredited as a fringe theory 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 being equally divided between only two models.[42][43]
References
^
abJasanoff, Sheila (1992). "What judges should know about the sociology of science". Jurimetrics: 345–359.
^Joseph, Simon J. (2012). "Jesus in India? Transgressing Social and Religious Boundaries". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 80 (1): 161–199.
doi:
10.1093/jaarel/lfr094.
^
abcFritze, Ronald H. (2009). "On the Perils and Pleasures of Confronting Pseudohistory". Historically Speaking. 10 (5): 2–5.
doi:
10.1353/hsp.0.0067.
S2CID144988932.
^Stokes, Douglas M. (1999). "Reviews of Scholarly Books—Christine Hardy; Networks of Meaning: A Bridge Between Mind and Matter". Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. 93 (4): 366–372.
^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.
Bibcode:
1995IJSEd..17..683A.
doi:
10.1080/0950069950170601.
^Hansson, Sven Ove (3 September 2008).
"Science and Pseudo-Science". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 ed.).
^Edwords, Frederick (1980). "Why creationism should not be taught as science". Creation/Evolution Journal. 1 (1): 2–23.
^Wexler, Jay D. (2006). "Intelligent Design and the First Amendment: A Response". Washington University Law Review. 84: 63–98.
Bibliography
Batt, Sharon (1996) [1994]. Patient No More: The Politics of Breast Cancer (Australian ed.). Spinifex Press.
ISBN978-1-875559-39-8.
Bell, David (2005). Science, Technology, and Culture. Issues in Cultural and Media Studies. Open University Press.
ISBN978-0-335-21326-9.
Curlee, Wanda; Gordon, Robert Lee (2013). Successful Program Management: Complexity Theory, Communication, and Leadership. Best Practices and Advances in Program Management Series. Auerbach.
ISBN978-1-4665-6879-2.
Davidson, Alexander (2002). How to Win in a Volatile Stock Market: The Definitive Guide to Investment Bargain Hunting (2nd ed.). Kogan Page.
ISBN978-0-7494-3803-6.
Erduran, Sibel; Dagher, Zoubeida (2013). Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education: Scientific Knowledge, Practices and Other Family Categories. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education. Springer.
ISBN978-94-017-9056-7.
Fine, Reuben (2013) [1963]. Freud: A Critical Re-evaluation of his Theories (Reprint ed.). Routledge.
ISBN978-0-415-71708-3.
Fritze, Ronald H. (2009). Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions. Reaktion Books.
ISBN978-1-86189-430-4.
Hansson, Sven Ove (2013). "Defining Pseudoscience and Science". In
Pigliucci, Massimo;
Boudry, Maarten (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 61–78.
ISBN978-0-226-05196-3.
Offit, Paul A. (2010). Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. Columbia University Press.
ISBN978-0-231-14637-1.
Quinn, Paul (2012). "Anti-Catholicism, Islamophobia, and Modern Christian Multi-Media". In Ansari, Humayun; Hafez, Farid (eds.). From the Far Right to the Mainstream: Islamophobia in Party Politics and the Media. Campus Verlag. pp. 130–153.
ISBN978-3-593-39648-4.
Rundlett, Ellsworth T. III (2013) [1991]. Maximizing Damages in Small Personal Injury Cases (Revision ed.). James Publishing.
ISBN978-0-938065-55-5.
Shermer, Michael (2013). "Science and Pseudoscience". In
Pigliucci, Massimo;
Boudry, Maarten (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 203–224.
ISBN978-0-226-05196-3.
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.
ISBN978-1-934631-29-4.
Thurs, Daniel L.; Numbers, Ronald L. (2013). "Science, Pseudoscience, and Science Falsely So-Called". In
Pigliucci, Massimo;
Boudry, Maarten (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 121–144.
ISBN978-0-226-05196-3.
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna (2006). Out of the Cave: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Dead Sea Scrolls Research. Harvard University Press.
ISBN978-0-674-02223-2.
Velasquez-Manoff, Moises (2013) [2012]. An Epidemic of Absence: A New Way of Understanding Allergies and Autoimmune Diseases (Reprint ed.). Scribner.
ISBN978-1-4391-9939-8.
Webman, Esther (2011). "Introduction—hate and absurdity: the impact of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". In Webman, Esther (ed.). The Global Impact of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: A Century-Old Myth. Routledge Jewish Studies Series. Routledge. pp. 1–24.
ISBN978-0-415-59892-7.
Wertheim, Margaret (2011). Physics on the Fringe: Smoke Rings, Circlons, and Alternative Theories of Everything. Walker Books.
ISBN978-0-8027-7872-7.