Английская Википедия:Fringe theory

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Self reference A fringe theory is an idea or a viewpoint which differs 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

Segment of the periodic table reformulated according to the fringe theory of "circlons" proposed by Jim Carter
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]Шаблон:Sfn 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.[2] Although often used in the context of fringe science, fringe theories have been discussed in fields of scholarship, such as Biblical criticism,[3] history,[4][5] finance,Шаблон:Sfn law,[6] medicine,[7]Шаблон:Sfn and politics.Шаблон:Sfn They even exist in fields of study which are themselves outside the mainstream, such as cryptozoologyШаблон:Sfn and parapsychology.[8]

Fringe theories meet with varying levels of academic acceptance.[9] Financial journalist Alexander Davidson characterized fringe theories as "peddled by a small band of staunch supporters," but not necessarily without merit.Шаблон:Sfn Daniel N. Robinson described them as occupying "a limbo between the decisive dead end and the ultimately credible productive theory."[10] However, the term is also used pejoratively; advocates of fringe theories are dismissed as cranks or crackpots who are out of touch with reality.Шаблон:Sfn[11] In this sense, there is some overlap with other dismissive labels, such as pseudoarchaeology,[5][12] pseudohistory,[5] and pseudoscience.[13]Шаблон:Sfn Describing ideas as fringe theories may be less pejorative than describing them as pseudoscholarship;Шаблон:Sfn while it is unlikely that anyone would identify their own work as pseudoscience,[14] astrologer David Cochrane is "proud to be a fringe theorist."[15]

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.[16] The conspirators are possessed of "almost superhuman power and cunning," as described by historian Esther Webman.Шаблон:Sfn

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.Шаблон:Sfn

Demarcation problem

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.Шаблон:Sfn 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]Шаблон:Sfn This is an aspect of the demarcation problem that occurs within both science and the humanities.Шаблон:Sfn

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.[17] 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.Шаблон:Sfn

Mainstream acceptance of fringe theories

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

Most fringe theories never become part of established scholarship.[11] Rejected ideas may help to refine mainstream thought,Шаблон:Sfn but most outside theories are simply incorrect and have no wider impact.[11] 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.[11]Шаблон:Sfn Other ideas that have made the transition include the germ theory of disease,Шаблон:Sfn Birkeland's explanation of the aurora,Шаблон:Sfn prions,[11] and complexity theory in project management.Шаблон:Sfn Behavioral finance was described in a 2002 journal article as "at the fringe of ... modern financial theory",[18] but it has since been widely applied in many fields of business.[19]

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.[6]

Conversely, former mainstream theories such as phlogiston and luminiferous aether may be superseded and relegated to the fringe.Шаблон:Sfn

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,"Шаблон:Sfn 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."[20]

False balance

Шаблон:Main article 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."[3] 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,[21] others in the media condemned the Times for portraying the alleged vaccine-autism connection as a fringe theory, calling the article a "hit piece".Шаблон:Sfn

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.[22][23]

References

Шаблон:Reflist

Bibliography

External links

Шаблон:Portal

Шаблон:Epistemology Шаблон:Pseudoscience

Партнерские ресурсы
Криптовалюты
Магазины
Хостинг
Разное

  1. ↑ 1,0 1,1 Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Jasanoff не указан текст
  2. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Morrison не указан текст
  3. ↑ 3,0 3,1 Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Collins не указан текст
  4. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Joseph не указан текст
  5. ↑ 5,0 5,1 5,2 Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Fritze не указан текст
  6. ↑ 6,0 6,1 Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Bluestone не указан текст
  7. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Sabbagh не указан текст
  8. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Stokes не указан текст
  9. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Abrams не указан текст
  10. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Robinson не указан текст
  11. ↑ 11,0 11,1 11,2 11,3 11,4 Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Timmer не указан текст
  12. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Magnusson не указан текст
  13. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  14. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Hansson не указан текст
  15. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Cochrane не указан текст
  16. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Hofstadter не указан текст
  17. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Dutch не указан текст
  18. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Leong не указан текст
  19. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Steverman не указан текст
  20. ↑ Шаблон:Citation
  21. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Harris не указан текст
  22. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Edwords не указан текст
  23. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок Wexler не указан текст
Источник — http://wikihandbk.com/ruwiki/index.php?title=Английская_Википедия:Fringe_theory&oldid=14808406