Home

About Me

Blog

Micro Blog Twitter

Welcome. Thank you for stopping by my website. Are you curious about the claims in the movie the Bleep or the Secret? Do you wonder how much of it may be based on real generally accepted science and how much of it is bunk? Is there anything in between?

There are a lot of interesting issues being actively research in mainstream science. And there are a lot of interesting research being done on the fringe of mainstream science. How does a not expert make sense of it all?

What is the fringe of mainstream science?

James S. Trefil wrote a delightful article called "A consumer's guide to Pseudoscience". In it he discusses a model, that I have embraced, where an area of study is thought of as have a center and then an expanding area around it in which research into the unknown is conducted. The center is best thought of as generally accepted mainstream science. This is the science you will find in textbooks and that will be thought to everyone during primary school and during secondary undergraduate programs.

As you explore further and further from the center you will find science where less and less experimental data is found. Thus, it is "fuzzy" and it this very "fuzziness" that makes many stay away from the outer rings of a science and work more in the center. However, as James describes in the article, some ideas that we consider main stream today, began in the fringe area. So science is not static but alive and "fed" by ideas that begin in the fringe.

The difficult task for laymen and professional alike is evaluating new ideas and deciding where to spend ones time and energy. The purpose of this site it to provide you with initially information. As the site grow, features will be added to allow for the exchange of ideas. Before that has full developed, please post any comments on blog.terrichamplin.com.

The value of mainstream science

We, humanity, know a lot about the world. Newtonian physics for macroscopic and day to day life, relativity for long distance and massive objects, and quantum mechanics for very very small and light object have been test for decades. In there range of action, which is huge, the amount of reliable, reproducible evidence of there validity is undisputable.

Thus, any new idea which violates known science is suspect and most likely wrong. Now don't get me wrong, sometimes good ideas can come from going down a path which is known not to be totally correct. However, there is a significant difference between starting with an idea and seeing where it goes and a claim that something is true when it is clear that cannot be unless decades of other evidence is wrong.

Presently, my immediate focus is on cellular communications, origins of life, and epigenetics. My broader focus is on how those topics related to consciousness and agency.

What makes relating fringe research of a broad audience is the pervasiveness of popular works like the book The Field, the movies series the Bleep, and the movie The Secret. While the book the Field is mostly dedicated to the reporting of Fringe science, the movie the Bleep addresses mainstream science, and the movie the Secret is based not an science at all but rather what is called pseudoscience. While portions of the Field are mainstream and some of the claims border on pseudoscience, the bulk of the work is genuine fringe science. And while the movie series the Bleep does also make some claims bordering on pseudoscience, the bulk of the work is genuine mainstream science. On the other hand the movie the Secret is based on the unproved idea that thoughts can directly effect matter.

Before I go any further, what exactly is pseudoscience and what is its relation to mainstream and fringe science. The defines pseudoscience as science not practiced by use of the scientific method. My workaday definition is a claim that is either unlikely as it violates know science or a claim that has not be researched and demonstrated using standard contemporary methods such as blind experiments, controlled experiments, and reproducible published experiments. Pseudoscience can be distinguished from fringe science by the use of standard contemporary methods. Fringe science is done with the intent of becoming mainstream science and it could never achieve that if the same methods used by mainstream science were not used to validate fringe science.

Thus, the claims in the movie and book The Secret are not based on anything related to science at all. In fact there claims are completely unsubstantiated yet are stated as fact. It is this that I find distributing. I am very interested in their claims. However, their presentation, marketing, and research leaves a lot to be desired.

More details about how I got to this point can be found on the about me page.

I hope you find these questions as fascinating I do and I encourage your to look at and subscribe to my blog where I will be writing about work in these areas.

Sincerely,

Terri Champlin SignaturePhoto of Terri Champlin