Denialism - 339

The science world has been defending itself from deniers for years. For over a decade, scientists who study psychology and sociology have been baffled by the ability of falsehoods to outperform scientific facts in the American Mind.

I went back to 2009 and examined what a prestigious European Health Journal had to say about science denial.

The article discussed the phenomenon of denialism, which involves rejecting the scientific consensus on major issues like HIV/AIDS, climate change, evolution, and smoking-related diseases—unfortunately, our inability to recognize that we were being deceived results in fatal consequences. Denialism thrives through tactics that distort scientific understanding and sow doubt about established facts, influencing public perception and policy.

Denialism has led to tragic outcomes. For example, former South African President Thabo Mbeki denied that HIV causes AIDS. This resulted in thousands of preventable HIV transmissions to children. This stance contradicted overwhelming scientific evidence. Similarly, creationism—despite being rejected by courts as unscientific—persists in American and some UK schools, which undermines our understanding of evolution and related concepts like antibiotic resistance.

Corporate interests often fuel denialism. Before climate change, the most famous lies were committed by the tobacco industry. Tobacco companies spent decades denying the link between smoking and cancer, employing misleading tactics to deflect attention. As a result, tens of thousands have died. Worse yet, climate change denial, perpetuated by fossil fuel companies, undermines the most prestigious climate authority, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These actions delay critical public health and environmental measures, threatening the Earth's ability to sustain life. These examples demonstrate how denialism often prioritizes profit over public welfare.

Here are five tactics used by denialists.

When creating a case against science, denialists project their own lack of character onto scientists by accusing them of concocting a conspiracy. This shady psychological mechanism is essentially a way for denialist to project their own shortcomings on others.  

Denialists claim scientific consensus results from conspiracies rather than independent, evidence-based research. For instance, opponents of fluoridation labeled it a Soviet plot, while some African Americans rejected AIDS evidence as a racist agenda. Although conspiracies exist, it is ridiculous to suggest that entire scientific communities are complicit.

Denialists use unqualified individuals to challenge established science while discrediting genuine experts. Tobacco companies recruited "Whitecoat" scientists to oppose evidence on second-hand smoke. Similarly, climate science denialists aligned with corporate interests marginalized credible, honest scientists with overwhelming supporting data.

Denialists cherry-pick isolated studies or flawed research to support their claims while ignoring the broader consensus. For instance, anti-vaccine advocates cite a retracted study linking autism to vaccines despite overwhelming evidence refuting this. Similarly, a flawed study denying second-hand smoke's health risks is still cited by tobacco proponents.

Denialists demand unattainable levels of certainty from science, such as precise historical temperature records for climate models. Tobacco companies tried to redefine epidemiological standards to invalidate evidence of smoking's harms.

Denialists distort arguments or employ fallacies like false analogies. For example, anti-smoking advocates are labeled as Nazis because Hitler supported anti-smoking campaigns. These deliberate, planted, logical missteps turn what should be a serious debate into unscientific and emotional attacks by denialists to undermine legitimate discussions.

Denialists are motivated by greed, ideology, faith, or eccentricity. Corporations like tobacco and oil companies fund denialism to protect profits. Religious and ideological beliefs drive resistance to evolution or climate change. Some individuals seek fame as contrarian figures. The contrarian's act is amplified by the media, which seeks something to catch our attention.

Countering denialism requires exposing its tactics rather than engaging in traditional academic debate. We assume both sides operate within logical and evidence-based frameworks. This is an invalid assumption on our part. Denialists often reject the rules of logic and reason, making constructive dialogue impossible. Instead, public health advocates and scientists must highlight the manipulative strategies denialists use, bringing their methods into public view.

For example, understanding denialism's five core tactics can help expose these manipulations. Rather than debating the specific claims denialists make, efforts should focus on educating the public about how denialism distorts science. This approach shifts the narrative, making denialism's flaws evident and reducing its influence.

Denialism has undermined public trust in science, delaying action on critical issues like public health, climate change, and education. Its tactics—conspiracy theories, fake experts, selective evidence, unreasonable demands, and logical fallacies—create an illusion of debate where none exists. By recognizing and exposing these tactics, scientists and policymakers can counter denialism effectively, protecting scientific integrity and advancing evidence-based decision-making.

Primary Resource: European Journal of Public Health, 2009