March 18, 2026
On the Fringe:
Where Science Meets Pseudoscience
Michael Gordin
Dean of the College at Princeton University and one of the world’s leading historians of science
On the Fringe:
Where Science Meets Pseudoscience
Michael Gordin
Dean of the College at Princeton University and one of the world’s leading historians of science
Michael Gordin and George Bustin, introducer
Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the 84th Year
George Bustin presided over the meeting. Frances Slade led the Old Guard in the invocation and Katherine Trenner read the minutes from the previous week’s meeting. There were 123 members in attendance. Two members each brought a guest: Russ White’s guest was his wife Sharon White; Charles Clark’s guest was Ed Price, who will be applying for membership.
George Bustin introduced the speaker, Michael Gordin. Dr. Gordin is the Rosengarten Professor of Modern and Contemporary History and Dean of the College of Princeton University.
Dean Gordin began his talk by stating 2 caveats: first, that when he used the term “science” in his talk he was referring solely to natural sciences; and second, that he is not including medicine. To start out, Dean Gordin asked: how do we know pseudoscience when we see it? He sees this as a threshold issue, the "demarcation problem." Pseudoscience is not part of a continuum that starts with excellent science on one end, fair science in the middle, and pseudoscience on the other end. In fact, the first use of this term was in 1798, pre-dating the word scientist which wasn’t coined until 1831.
In the mid 20th century, philosopher Karl Popper came up with a definition that said that a theory is pseudoscience if it cannot produce falsifiable claims. Gordin said there are 3 problems with this idea of falsifiability: First: how do you know you have falsified your theory? One doesn’t always get correct results from an experiment. Second, does the theory demarcate in the right places, i.e. can what most people agree is true science be separated from what most people agree is pseudoscience? The third problem Dean Gordin named is that Popper didn’t believe in the concept of “truth”, just statements that are not yet found to be false.
Another major problem of pseudoscience is an incomplete taxonomy of fringe doctrines. Dean Gordin related a few categories of fringe doctrines to give his audience an idea of what this field encompasses.
The first term mentioned was Vestigial Sciences; these are topics that were once considered sciences but not anymore. One example is Astrology. Dean Gordin made the point that most of the legitimate sciences today have their origins in something that is now considered fringe or pseudoscience.
A second term that Dean Gordin discussed is Hyperpoliticized Sciences which have been associated with authoritarian regimes or repressive dictatorships. Two that he described were Aryan Physics and Lysenkoism.
The third term Dean Gordin mentioned is Counter-establishment Sciences, which he defined as what most people think of when they think of pseudosciences: Cryptozoology (Big Foot, Loch Ness monster, etc.), Creationism, UFOology, and Cosmic Catastrophism, to name a few. He noted that these were very popular after WWII, especially in the US. They were heartily denounced by mainstream scientists which caused groups of believers to organize and oppose the mainstream. They publish journals, organize conferences, hold workshops, even create degree programs (Creation Science).
The fourth term is Mind Over Matter (Powers of the Mind) which includes Spiritualism, Mesmerism, and ESP. Dean Gordin said that this is the most dominant area of the fringe sciences and is an active area of current research. The debate between this fringe science and mainstream science has introduced many innovations into experimental methods which came about from efforts to debunk these “mind over matter” theories.
The final issue of pseudoscience that Dean Gordin identified is Fringe Theories Stacking. This means that certain fringe theories that appear to not be related seem to “stack” or be connected. Gordin explained by using the example of the Velikovsky Theory, promoted by Immanuel Velikovsky in his book Worlds in Collision (1950). Even though most of his theory was debunked shortly after the book was published, he had a lot of followers and in the 1970s 2 theories emerged that have nothing to do with Velikovsky’s or with each other, but which are supported by a lot of people who support Velikovsky’s theory. One is that Oswald did not act alone in assassinating JFK; the other is that Shakespeare did not write the plays that are attributed to him. Gordin explained that he thinks that once you believe in 1 conspiracy theory it is very easy to believe in another. How can we make sense of this? If nothing bad happens when one starts to believe in a fringe theory, then your resistance to believing in a second one is lowered.
Therefore, Gordin says, we should look at the sociological phenomena that happen within the fringe communities when certain theories cluster together but others don’t. Are some theories “entry” theories and others theories that people believe only after they already believe one or more fringe theories?
In conclusion, Dean Gordin stated that “fringe science is part of the process of science functioning normally.” He feels that we should admit that not all of it is harmful, but we should focus resources on debunking the more dangerous ones.
The Q and A discussion was broad-ranged: has Dean Gordin looked at the history of pseudoscience at Princeton University? (yes, it was privately funded so it was allowed); how can people figure out what is real science for themselves? (one has to do one’s own research); how does religion figure in this issue? (creationism is dealt with in jurisprudence; different religions interpret science differently); and anti-vaccine theory (The heart of the anti-vax movement is that in fact a few people have gotten sick from vaccines. The US has a national vaccine insurance program specifically for those people, and autism science is not very good.)
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah Ringer
George Bustin introduced the speaker, Michael Gordin. Dr. Gordin is the Rosengarten Professor of Modern and Contemporary History and Dean of the College of Princeton University.
Dean Gordin began his talk by stating 2 caveats: first, that when he used the term “science” in his talk he was referring solely to natural sciences; and second, that he is not including medicine. To start out, Dean Gordin asked: how do we know pseudoscience when we see it? He sees this as a threshold issue, the "demarcation problem." Pseudoscience is not part of a continuum that starts with excellent science on one end, fair science in the middle, and pseudoscience on the other end. In fact, the first use of this term was in 1798, pre-dating the word scientist which wasn’t coined until 1831.
In the mid 20th century, philosopher Karl Popper came up with a definition that said that a theory is pseudoscience if it cannot produce falsifiable claims. Gordin said there are 3 problems with this idea of falsifiability: First: how do you know you have falsified your theory? One doesn’t always get correct results from an experiment. Second, does the theory demarcate in the right places, i.e. can what most people agree is true science be separated from what most people agree is pseudoscience? The third problem Dean Gordin named is that Popper didn’t believe in the concept of “truth”, just statements that are not yet found to be false.
Another major problem of pseudoscience is an incomplete taxonomy of fringe doctrines. Dean Gordin related a few categories of fringe doctrines to give his audience an idea of what this field encompasses.
The first term mentioned was Vestigial Sciences; these are topics that were once considered sciences but not anymore. One example is Astrology. Dean Gordin made the point that most of the legitimate sciences today have their origins in something that is now considered fringe or pseudoscience.
A second term that Dean Gordin discussed is Hyperpoliticized Sciences which have been associated with authoritarian regimes or repressive dictatorships. Two that he described were Aryan Physics and Lysenkoism.
The third term Dean Gordin mentioned is Counter-establishment Sciences, which he defined as what most people think of when they think of pseudosciences: Cryptozoology (Big Foot, Loch Ness monster, etc.), Creationism, UFOology, and Cosmic Catastrophism, to name a few. He noted that these were very popular after WWII, especially in the US. They were heartily denounced by mainstream scientists which caused groups of believers to organize and oppose the mainstream. They publish journals, organize conferences, hold workshops, even create degree programs (Creation Science).
The fourth term is Mind Over Matter (Powers of the Mind) which includes Spiritualism, Mesmerism, and ESP. Dean Gordin said that this is the most dominant area of the fringe sciences and is an active area of current research. The debate between this fringe science and mainstream science has introduced many innovations into experimental methods which came about from efforts to debunk these “mind over matter” theories.
The final issue of pseudoscience that Dean Gordin identified is Fringe Theories Stacking. This means that certain fringe theories that appear to not be related seem to “stack” or be connected. Gordin explained by using the example of the Velikovsky Theory, promoted by Immanuel Velikovsky in his book Worlds in Collision (1950). Even though most of his theory was debunked shortly after the book was published, he had a lot of followers and in the 1970s 2 theories emerged that have nothing to do with Velikovsky’s or with each other, but which are supported by a lot of people who support Velikovsky’s theory. One is that Oswald did not act alone in assassinating JFK; the other is that Shakespeare did not write the plays that are attributed to him. Gordin explained that he thinks that once you believe in 1 conspiracy theory it is very easy to believe in another. How can we make sense of this? If nothing bad happens when one starts to believe in a fringe theory, then your resistance to believing in a second one is lowered.
Therefore, Gordin says, we should look at the sociological phenomena that happen within the fringe communities when certain theories cluster together but others don’t. Are some theories “entry” theories and others theories that people believe only after they already believe one or more fringe theories?
In conclusion, Dean Gordin stated that “fringe science is part of the process of science functioning normally.” He feels that we should admit that not all of it is harmful, but we should focus resources on debunking the more dangerous ones.
The Q and A discussion was broad-ranged: has Dean Gordin looked at the history of pseudoscience at Princeton University? (yes, it was privately funded so it was allowed); how can people figure out what is real science for themselves? (one has to do one’s own research); how does religion figure in this issue? (creationism is dealt with in jurisprudence; different religions interpret science differently); and anti-vaccine theory (The heart of the anti-vax movement is that in fact a few people have gotten sick from vaccines. The US has a national vaccine insurance program specifically for those people, and autism science is not very good.)
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah Ringer