When knowledge is suppressed we all lose.

[Grat3fulh3ad]

EDIT: I'll warn everyone from the beginning, there is about thirty pages worth of me having to play nitpicker whack-a-mole, but there is a bit of good discussion among it. Apologies in advance for the troll clutter :END EDIT

scientific denialism is detrimental.

A fascinating paper well worth reading is Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? (Diethelm & McKee 2009) (H/T to Jeremy Kemp for the heads-up). While the focus is on public health issues, it nevertheless establishes some useful general principles on the phenomenon of scientific denialism. A vivid example is the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, who argued against the scientific consensus that HIV caused AIDS. This led to policies preventing thousands of HIV positive mothers in South Africa from receiving anti-retrovirals. It's estimated these policies led to the loss of more than 330,000 lives (Chigwedere 2008). Clearly the consequences of denying science can be dire, even fatal.

The authors define denialism as "the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists". They go on to identify 5 characteristics common to most forms of denialism:

Conspiracy theories
When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes something is true, the denialist won't admit scientists have independently studied the evidence to reach the same conclusion. Instead, they claim scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The South African government of Thabo Mbeki was heavily influenced by conspiracy theorists claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. When such fringe groups gain the ear of policy makers who cease to base their decisions on science-based evidence, the human impact can be disastrous.
Fake experts
These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts, seeking to discredit their work. Tobacco denialists have frequently attacked Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, for his exposure of tobacco industry tactics, labelling his research 'junk science'.
Cherry picking
This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. An example is a paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which suggested a possible link with immunization. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association.
Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
The tobacco company Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard for the conduct of epidemiological studies. These stricter guidelines would have invalidated in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of cigarettes.
Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
Logical fallacies include the use of straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented, making it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environmental tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. This was attacked as nothing less than a 'threat to the very core of democratic values and democratic public policy'.

Why is it important to define the tactics of denialism? Good faith discussion requires consideration of the full body of scientific evidence. This is difficult when confronted with rhetorical techniques which are designed to distort and distract. Identifying and publicly exposing these tactics are the first step in redirecting discussion back to a focus on the science.

 

[Noobian]

Edit: thanks for the article, it is a good read

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

skepticism is good and integral to the scientific process, but entrenched denialism stagnates humanity's progress.

 

[HeD333]

What an exellent point.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The War on Scientific Denialism Begins to Move Beyond Scientists

One of the more promising trends I've seen is that the various forms of denialism that scientists regularly decry (including those of us here at ScienceBlogs) are starting to be recognized by non-scientists. I don't know if there's a direct cause-and-effect here, or if like-minded people are coming up with the same idea (the most depressing cause would be if this got started with a stupid blog comment...). Anyway, I bring you public policy professor Mark Kleiman (italics mine):

One largely unremarked aspect of global-warming denialism (as exemplified by George Will and demolished by Mike ...and Zachary Roth at TPM) is that it amounts to a conspiracy theory. All of the world's actual climate scientists, and everyone in an a allied field capable of understanding their models, would have to be co-conspirators in the plot, with only a rag-tag group of economists, meteorologists, petroleum geologists, astrologers, and political pundits capable of seeing, and willing to say, that the emperor has no clothes.
Most of the glibertarians, cultural conservatives, and gadget-heads who constitute the useful idiots around the core oil-and-coal-company global-warming denialist constituency would be horrified to imagine themselves playing the role of 9/11 Truthers, or RFK Jr. pumping the thimerosal/autism link, or Thabo Mbeki claiming that AIDS isn't caused by HIV. But all four "movements" are alike in depending on compete mistrust of actual scientific experts....

One possible reason that global-warming denialism is more prevalent in the U.S. than elsewhere is that more Americans than Europeans are Biblical literalists. That involves believing that all biologists and paleontologists are either massively incompetent or deliberately trying to mislead the public about the central facts of their disciplines. [The alternative theory, held by some, is that the entire fossil record is a trick by Satan, intended to deceive those whose faith isn't firm.] I haven't seen any data on the overlap between global-warming denialism and creationism, but thinking about Sarah Palin and her fans you'd have to guess at a strong correlation between the two beliefs.

Global-warming denialism is a special case, of course: the policy implications of the facts about climate change threaten some very large economic interests and some dearly-held political beliefs. So global-warming-denialist brochures are printed on glossy paper. Other than that, though, it's fairly standard-grade fringe pseudoscience, not much different from the folks who write endless papers full of gibberish proving that Einstein was wrong.

...there's uncertainty in the models. (Though that uncertainty, the deniers seem to forget, means that the models might be too modest, as well as too alarmist, in their warnings.) But denialism doesn't promote that serious debate: it merely introduces fake uncertainty, which makes it harder to see all the real uncertainty.

I think this is a good development. I realize some around these parts (ok, one guy on ScienceBlogs) thinks that when people engage in communal psychotic breaks from reality, we should be nice to them. But we have to stop being nice to these guys because this isn't a serious argument but a cracked worldview. And Kleiman makes a very key point, one that I don't think is emphasized enough regarding denialism: it requires conspiracy theories that make the X-Files look tame.

The only difference between most denialists (excepting, perhaps, the useful idiots) and the crazy guy on the corner is that the denialists bathe more often.

 

[Noobian]

As long as there has been science there have been the deniers. One need only look to Galileo and Coprenicus to see that! Some people need to have things physically beaten into their brains before they will understand. It sucks but it is human nature I suppose

 

[SmilinBob]

Science isn't real..

Sorry, I had to do it. With all of the blah surrounding your recent threads.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Yeah, we took a used car to the moon.

She blinded me with science

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

i know, right...

i'm going to stay away from any taboo topics and just discuss the general phenomenon of denialism and perhaps its psychology.

excellent video on the topic :
https://www.icmag.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=1659

 

[Noobian]

It's funny how many if not all of the traits of a scientific denialist are shared by a certain politcal party and their allies in the media and academic fields. Correlation is not causation but there is definitely a relationship between people who employ these types denial tactics and their political beliefs

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

there is no relationship between denialism and politics which is appropriate to discuss on icmag. That sort of thing is the reason good threads get arbitrarily closed. this topic can absolutely be discussed apolitically. there are at least a few deniers in most every political 'bracket'.

 

[SpasticGramps]

LOL

Political Science again I see.

Keep trying to crucify the heretics bro.

 

[D4sh3y]

Sounds like every religious person i've argued with.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

we can talk political science... if people will leave out political rhetoric.

but since some people cannot, it's best to simply stay on topic...

gravity holds us all down to the ground, regardless of proclaimed idealogical affiliation...
i know some people's politics is integral to their very being, but i'd think with a clearly defined topic, self control is not impossible.

i dunno... this thread may end up getting trolled to death, too... too early to tell, we'll have to cross our fingers and hope civility prevails.

 

[Green lung]

Whats your take on "vaccines deniers"

 

[SuperSizeMe]

What a blow-hard...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Whats your take on "vaccines deniers"

just another form of scientific denial... anyone who does their homework can usually debunk any deniers easily.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

supersizeme, let what go? the scientific method as the best way to determine what is?

never.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Heresy!!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Heresy!!

well...


They'll stone you when you're trying to be so good
They'll stone you just like they said they would
They'll stone you when you're trying to go home
They'll stone you when you're there all alone
But I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned