Now I'm trying to parse the differences between protoscience, fringe science, pseudoscience and junk science.

All different flavors of suck?

All different flavors of suck?

Untrue buckaroo!

Protoscience is basically theories which haven't been proven yet. So when Newton has a eureka moment with an apple it's protoscience until we can prove it. Not all protoscience becomes Science, though. Often (usually?) it's proved false.

Freudian psychoanalysis is also considered protoscience. It has elements in it (such as the theory of the unconscious) which cannot be proved scientifically. It may be true, but can't be proven yet.

String theory may yet wind up as Protoscience, I guess. The Grand Unification Theory of physics is protoscience.

Tectonic plate theory was fringe science originally. It was an alternate theory to scientific orthodoxy that was eventually proved correct.

Pseudoscience are things which look scientific but have an unscientific basis. Like Intelligent Design.

Junk Science is false science which is agenda driven. That is, the result is determined beforehand and the facts are rearranged to meet that result.

In sum: fringe and protoscience are a bit whacky, but often become real science. Pseudoscience and Junk Science are of the suck.

Also, Proto-Clown liked to smash things.

Who knew about the Brights movement?

Do our local atheists need "a positive-sounding umbrella term, bright, to describe various types of people who have a naturalistic worldview, without casting that worldview as a negative response to religion"?

This sounds like Jen to me:

Co-founder of the Brights' Net Paul Geisert coined the term, and Mynga Futrell defined a bright to be "a person whose worldview is naturalistic—free of supernatural and mystical elements. A bright's ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview."[2]

Not that Jen needs any particular labels. Oh, and some people object to the name:

For example, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry published an article by Chris Mooney titled Not Too "Bright" in which he stated that, although he agreed with the movement, Richard Dawkins' and Daniel Dennett's "campaign to rename religious unbelievers 'brights' could use some rethinking" because of the possibility that the term would be misinterpreted.[8] The journalist and noted atheist Christopher Hitchens likewise found it a "cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called 'brights.'"[9]

We talked over the brights, a couple of summers ago when one of them did a piece for the NYT op-eds. At the time, I recall being irritated with needing a marketing message.

At the time, I recall being irritated with needing a marketing message.

How can we package you without proper branding, Nutty?

How can we package you without proper branding, Nutty?

Just add the disclaimer. "Warning: may contain Nutty."

Nutty's Logo

These are all good band names.

I kind of think they'd make better album names, but either way, I like them and agree on principle.

I hate the word 'bright'. It simultaneously sounds new-agey, scifi-ish, and condescending to believers.

eta: Oh, and it makes me think of Lite Bright