This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moink (talk | contribs) at 07:17, 12 September 2005 (removing deletion tag, result was keep with possible merge to pseudoscience, also moving expand tag to talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:17, 12 September 2005 by Moink (talk | contribs) (removing deletion tag, result was keep with possible merge to pseudoscience, also moving expand tag to talk page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | It has been suggested that this article be merged with pseudoscience. (Discuss) |
The term controversial science however has been traditionally used of those ideas and theories which have been advanced by individuals either from outside the field of science which they are addressing and in which they are proposing views at odds with generally agreed-upon findings, or from scientists outside the mainstream of their disciplines. An example of controversial science is the work of Wilhelm Reich a psychiatrist whose controversial work with "orgone," a physical energy he claimed to have discovered, contributed to his alienation from the psychiatric and eventually resulted in his jailing.
Another example of the traditional understanding of the term is the title of a work on the supernatural, "Parapsychology: The Controversial Science."
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 wich contradicted literal or fundamentalist readings of certain ancient religious texts. Among these fields were paleo-anthropology, human sexuality, evolution, geology, and paleontology. However, such attempts are branded as being the result of a misunderstanding of the scientific process, which is seen by scientists to be akin to a dialogue, which has no conclusion, and by some in the public as a debate which should have 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.
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.