| Revision as of 09:50, 12 July 2007 editSmackBot (talk | contribs)3,734,324 editsm Date/fix the maintenance tags or gen fixes← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:00, 5 August 2007 edit undoFradulent Ideas (talk | contribs)112 edits ←Redirected page to Fringe scienceNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #Redirect ] | |||
| {{Citations missing|date=July 2007}} | |||
| 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.{{Fact|date=March 2007}} | |||
| 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.{{Fact|date=March 2007}} 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.{{Fact|date=March 2007}} | |||
| 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 ].{{Fact|date=March 2007}} 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.{{Fact|date=March 2007}} | |||
| 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,{{Fact|date=March 2007}} 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 ].{{Fact|date=March 2007}} Among these fields were ], ], ], ], and ].{{Fact|date=March 2007}} | |||
| 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.''{{Fact|date=March 2007}} | |||
| 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== | |||
| * | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 14:00, 5 August 2007
Redirect to: