If you were to look at the word “fringe” in a dictionary, you would find that one of its definitions is “the outer, marginal, or extreme part of an area, group or sphere of activity”. In science, this would mean to search for what is not commonly acceptable, away from the orthodox theories and outside the sphere of the academically acceptable.
Sometimes, fringe science depicts issues that were once considered as facts, but after the relevant research, they were dismissed either due to lack of supporting evidence or due to finds that contradicted the theories. This is actually NOT fringe science as it is based on the basics of the acceptable: observation, experimentation and consolidation of the experimental results. What does that mean?
- You observe an occurrence that you need to explain
- You form a theory about what would it be that can possibly explain the occurrence
- You experiment trying to prove your theory
- You consolidate the results of your experiments and see if they prove, or disprove your theory. If they prove it, you publish the theory and the proof. If not, you return to step “b” and try again.
Sometimes you run into a situation that some of the results prove your theory and some others do not. The prudent thing to do is to return to step “b” and modify the theory to incorporate more positive results. If, after several attempts, you still find exceptions to your theory, then you publish the theory, the positive results and the exceptions.
All the above are the acceptable steps for the recognition of scientific achievement. But this is not fringe science. Fringe science is based not on observations but on ideas. Ideas that replace step “a” and skip to step “b”. Forming a theory that would, in this case, provide results that will support the idea. And then you experiment. And here lies the problem.
Let’s suppose that you are not satisfied with the contemporary solutions to the various technical problems and you want to discover things that will provide better solutions. Or that you would need to discover a theoretical model like the string theory, upon which to base further research. That would classify you as an inventor, if you manage to find your solutions, and it will classify you as a significant chapter in the advancement of science, if you manage to create your theoretical models.
But what if your intentions are not all that honorable? What if your intention is to develop a weapon that would kill billions instead of millions in an instant? What if your intention is to develop any kind of technology that would become the standard for controlling the public and turning it to robots? What if your intention is to do research that is not governed by any kind of moral or social inhibitions? Then what?
Wernher von Braun could be considered as the father of the science that allowed mankind to go out to space. But what did he use his discoveries for? To develop the V2 rockets which killed 21,000 civilians in London and the concentration camps that built the weapon. And they would probably have killed a lot more, if those rockets were fitted with the atomic weaponry that was researched in the German laboratories by Walther Gerlach and Kurt Diebner.
Julius Robert Oppenheimer is renowned. What for? The Manhattan Project, i.e. the creation of the atomic bomb. There is no doubt that atomic and nuclear energy is a major advancement, if used cautiously and with the appropriate safety measures. But its use as a mass murder weapon that has already killed:
- 120,000 souls immediately (80,000 in Hiroshima, 40,000 in Nagasaki)
- another 100,000 as a result of their exposure to hard radiation (86,000 in Hiroshima, 34,000 in Nagasaki) and
- an unlimited number of people due to the side-effects of radiation is an appalling distortion of scientific discovery. Somehow, the excuse that “we developed it because the Germans were developing it”, seems too poor.
Both rocket and atomic science were considered as fringe at that time, as indicated by Admiral William D. Leahy’s statement:
“That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The [atomic] bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.”
The scope of this article is not to include the aspects of fringe science that are considered as pseudoscience, voodoo, cargo cult or plain quack. Our thoughts refer to the discoveries that begin as fairly innocuous projects for the betterment of mankind, and turn out as horrible weapons in the hands of maniacs like the military or politicians.
Our thoughts refer to the scientists who accept the directives of these maniacs and help them fulfill their dreams of absolute power. “Scientists” like Josef Mengele, Robert C. Gunn, R,C, Malech, Hans Kammler, Jeffrey Amherst.
Because that is what fringe science is all about in the practical level. A wild idea that is provided grants and funds, if and only if the results can provide solid political leverage or significant military advantage. Everything else is just dead and buried.
We all talk about the Large Hadron Collider and what scientific advances it can bring. But it is funded by the same people who funded all the Manhattan project. Does anyone here has any doubt as to what is it being used for?
In a previous article we talked about the “teleforce” weapon of Nikola Tesla and how it was not possible in 1958. The research of the Advanced Research Projects Agency attributed the inability to the insufficient power generation at the time and the lack of certain particle accelerators. LHC is definitely a particle accelerator, its power requirements are enormous and it too was considered as fringe science…
Copyright © 2016 Learning Mind. All rights reserved. For permission to reprint, contact us.
Latest posts by Yiannis (see all)
- Mysteries of the World War II: Why Hitler Didn’t Destroy the British at Dunkirk - February 12, 2015
- Great People, Strange Wills: 9 Weirdest Last Wishes of Famous People - February 7, 2015
- 5 Fantastic Ancient Inventions Lost in the Mist of Time - February 1, 2015
- New Super Antibiotic Found in Dirt Can Kill Drug-Resistant Bacteria - January 14, 2015
- Understanding the Basics of Particle Physics - December 30, 2014