| Revision as of 13:21, 25 December 2006 editHaiduc (talk | contribs)15,071 edits copy edits← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:57, 11 March 2009 edit undoTexasAndroid (talk | contribs)109,350 edits rv blanking of redirect. If the redirect should be deleted, please use WP:RFD, but please do not just blank it. | ||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #Redirect ] | ||
| The phrase '''controversial science''' describes ideas and theories at odds with mainstream science. These ideas have often been advanced by individuals either from outside the field of science, or by scientists outside the mainstream of their own disciplines. | |||
| An example of controversial science is the work of ] a psychiatrist whose work with "orgone," a physical energy he claimed to have discovered, contributed to his alienation from the psychiatric community and eventually to his jailing. A similar case was that of ], who advanced the theory that large amounts of ] functioned as a ] for a whole host of diseases, a claim that has largely been refuted. | |||
| Another use of the term is in describing fields of knowledge which are not, for lack of evidence or confirmability, recognized as bona fide sciences. This use of "controversial science" is subsumed by the term ]. Included in this category are the study of super-natural phenomena (reflected in the title of a work on the supernatural, "]: The Controversial Science"), ], ] and so on. | |||
| Towards the end of the 20th century, religiously inspired critics of certain fields of scientific research attempted to brand as "controversial" a host of scientific fields which contradicted literal or fundamentalist readings of certain ancient religious texts, taking ongoing scientific exploration on certain aspects of those topics as evidence that those findings were not conclusively valid. This was claimed to have left open a window for ] and ]. Among these fields were ], ], ], ], and ]. | |||
| However, such attempts are dismissed by ] as being the result of a misunderstanding of the scientific process, understood by scientists to be akin to a dialogue which has no conclusion, despite the public's desire for ultimate winners and losers. As Dr. Donald E. Simanek, Physics professor at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania asserts, ''Too often speculative and tentative hypotheses of cutting edge science are treated as if they were scientific truths, and so accepted by a public eager for answers,'' ignorant of the fact that ''As science progresses from ignorance to understanding it must pass through a transitionary phase of confusion and uncertainty.'' | |||
| The media also play a role in the creation and propagation of controversies and the view that certain fields of science are controversial. In "Optimising Public Understanding of Science: A Comparative Perspective" by Jan Nolin et al., the authors claim that ''From a media perspective it is evident that controversial science sells, not only because of its dramatic value but also since it is often connected to high-stake societal issues.'' | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| *] | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| *] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| *''Controversial Science: From Content to Contention'' by Thomas Brante et al. | |||
| *''Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science'' by Sharon Dunwoody et al. | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| * | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 14:57, 11 March 2009
Redirect to: