Talk:Fringe theory#Examples discussion

I removed :Category:Pseudo-scholarship as inappropriate. Pseudo-scholarship (PS) is fringe theory (FT), but FT is not necessarily PS. Likewise, Swedish language is inappropriate as a member of :Category:Finland Swedish. Okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonfromfinland (talk • contribs) 29 January 2014

I looked through all my lexicons of philosophy of science/epistemology today and found that there is no explicit article about fring theory, even not mentioned. The sources in the article are also relatively thin. There are just [https://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22fring+theory%22&btnG= two articles] on it in Google Scholar and four articel in [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22fring+theory%22&tbm=bks&ei=mQN8YIfkBaz-7_UP1r2CWA&oq=%22fring+theory%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...5492.7728.0.8389.2.2.0.0.0.0.76.136.2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.tBkfvY91fz8 Google Books]. What is in the article - is probably mostly theory fabrication. Each sentence should be supported by reliable sources, otherwise delete - because theory findung of authors.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

{{Discussion top|result=To not merge, as finge science is a notable subset of fringe theory, but large enough to warrant separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)}}

What is the difference between those terms? I think there is none, and as synonyms, they should be merged. This was discussed 10 years ago in Talk:Fringe_theory/Archive_1#Fringe_science_vs_fringe_theory, where I see an emerging consensus to merge (but there was no vote and the discussion got sidetracked). As for the direction of the merge, Google test shows 860k hits for fringe theory, and 800k for fringe science, so I'd suggest to merge the science article into the theory one (name-wise). Ping participants of that old discussion: {{ping|POVbrigand|Aarghdvaark|Blueboar}} _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Ps. Content-wise, this (theory) article attempts to define theory as a wider term then science ("Fringe theories include the models and proposals of fringe science, as well as similar ideas in other areas of scholarship, such as the humanities" - unreferenced claim from lead, and from the body, "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]" - but I don't see any source supporting not caling fields of history or medicine 'science'.", and the word scholarship (primary meaning: financial aid...) is used here in a rather weird fashion that IMHO is synonymous to science anyway. As for the fringe science article, it simply doesn't mention the term fringe theory outside the see also... So frankly, this entire split seems to be a fringe theory :P --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Looking back at that old discussion, the question was whether to merge this article (Fringe theory) into the article on Fringe science. That idea was rejected. The consensus was that while “Fringe science” is a common and concerning sub-topic of “Fringe Theory”, there are other forms of “Fringe theories” that have nothing to do with “science” (pseudo-history, fringe theology, and conspiracy theories were examples).

:If I read this proposal correctly, the idea now is to merge in the other direction… to merge our Fringe science article into this broader article.

:I am hesitant. While fringe science is a sub-topic within the broader topic of fringe theory, I think it has enough unique features that it merits its own sub-article. The two articles should definitely be linked, but each has a somewhat different scope. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

::@Blueboar I'd be happy to withdraw this idea if we had a single RS that draws a distinction between these topics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

:::Oppose, on the grounds that these are distinct topics warranting separate coverage. The arguments about political and theological fringe theories are convincing; fringe science is sufficiently notable to warrant a separate page. Klbrain (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose As pointed out above, fringe science is one chunk of fringe theory, but there are many fringe theories that are not in the realm of science. Libcub (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. There are various sources that discuss fringe theories in the context of conspiracy theories; for examples, scroll through [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22fringe+theory%22+%22conspiracy+theory%22&sxsrf=AJOqlzXDkf-t58yla5T1YCviocyKIyBSjQ:1677619603559&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwid-aaElLn9AhXFN30KHQc3BlkQ_AUoAXoECAEQCw&biw=1707&bih=907&dpr=1.5 GBooks] for reliable (and unreliable) sources. -Location (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}

It is missing a section on how fringe theories can be contributors to hate speech and can cause harm. This section would require research of a very sordid kind as I am not familiar with all kinds of racist or misogynist theories. We establish that fringe theories exist outside of the mainstream, but don't go into enough how they exist without the mainstream. Drocj (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)