Abstract
Within contemporary society both 'pseudoscience' and 'pseudomedicine' can be found. Such knowledge is seen as incorrect, wrong or irrational. I call them 'unorthodox (uncertain) knowledge'. Conversely, 'orthodox knowledge' －for example, science, medicine, etc. －is seen as correct, right or rational. Some people believe 'unorthodox (uncertain) knowledge'. Experts castigate such people from the standpoint that they lack the basic understanding of 'orthodox knowledge'. That is, experts see the ordinary lay person as subjective, ignorant or irrational (whereas they see themselves as objective, analytical, prudent or rational). But are people ignorant or irrational? The aim of this paper is to examine this question in terms of analyzing the interplay among the characteristics of 'orthodox knowledge', 'unorthodox (uncertain) knowledge' and the nature of people's concerns. Thus, this paper explains that people develop certain situated understandings of 'orthodox knowledge' and/or 'unorthodox (uncertain) knowledge' through their intensive experiences. Also, this paper suggests that people need to rethink or reflect on the good institutions which mediate between people and experts.
