Uncommon Descent's post on why it's good they're denialists made me realize that it's time to write a post about the denialist's defense against being called a denialist. Here's the many tactics they will used when this label is applied.

1. Simplest of all, just deny that they're a denialist. This is the plugging your ears defense.
   


2. Make out that they are part of a long line of "hero" denialists that changed the scientific consensus, like Pasteur or Einstein (Orac calls this the Galileo Gambit). This is the changing the definition defense or ego defense.
   


3. Accuse the accuser of being a denialist. This is the projection defense.


4. Accuse the accuser of making a black-list. This is the McCarthy defense.

Now, the plugging your ears defense is pretty consistent with generally denialist behavior, when you don't want your worldview challenged, and all the data suggests your worldview is silly, then you have little choice, you're just going to have to plug your ears every once in a while and yell "Mary had a little lamb" at the top of your lungs.

The changing definition defense defense /ego defense both rely on changing the definition of denialism, which I've made quite clear, to make the heroes of science just like them. Suddenly Einstein isn't a patent clerk who wrote amazing papers that changed the way scientists think about the universe, he's a crank who sat around writing nasty things on inter-office mail and was never believed in his own time. The denialist alleges by mere virtue that they are a crank, that they are somehow special, that one day they'll be vindicated for their special or elite knowledge. This is the ego side of it and is most common among the HIV/AIDS denialists when I see them argue. However, denialism is not defined as merely having a minority opinion (after all a minority of people believe in evolution). Denialism is the use of rhetorical tactics to undermine scientific debate. It is the use of conspiracy theories, selective or cherry-picked data, false experts, moving goalposts to obfuscate debate, and logical fallacies.

The difference between a crank and these paradigm shifters is the paradigm shifters had data. Further, no one saw these people as "cranks" in the scientific establishment. They might not have believed them, but it wasn't like they were denied faculty positions, excluded from meetings, or mocked for their views. They simply hadn't met the threshold to overturn consensus yet. They like mentioning Barry Marshall (who was at UVA I might add). Marshall wasn't seen as a crank, just wrong. He proved his point with data (very interesting data I might add), and then people believed him. He didn't sit around alleging conspiracies and cherry-picking results. He didn't hire the Cato institute or AEI to confuse the science. He didn't make up a bunch of silly analogies about arson. He used evidence.

That's the difference between a real paradigm shifter and a crank.

Then there's the accuse the accuser defense, this is the most natural defense of all for a denialist. It fits with the kinds of arguments that they believe in, like that you can overturn data with bad analogies. If you're accuser is just a denialist, your worldview remains protected, think about it.

You'll see them assert that it's those damn historians who believe in the holocaust must be the real denialists, those dirty believers in history, or those damn HIV/AIDS doctors and researchers who believe that HAART saves lives are the real denialists, or those damn global warming scientists who measure climate change, they're the real cranks, or those damn biologists who study biology and believe that fossils, DNA, geology are evidence for evolution, they're the worsts denialists of all... Screw those people.

Those guys are the cranks, not me, never me.

Finally, there's the McCarthy defense that is by calling people denialists you're creating guilt-by-association. An HIV/AIDS denialist will say denying the link between HIV and AIDS isn't unreasonable, and pointing out that they use the same methods as other denialists, like evolution denialists or holocausts denialists is unfair. They're not like those other dirty denialists, they're just misunderstood.

But they are like those other denialists. That's the whole point that we make here at denialism.com. The methods of all denialists are the same. We're not creating guilt-by-association, we're pointing out that that they're using similar tactics, and that no matter what the denialists deny, they use the same rhetorical tricks to sow confusion and disrupt debate. If they feel guilty that they share space with these other denialists, that's not my problem. They're the ones using denialist tactics to make their point. If they don't want to be called cranks or denialists, I suggest instead of alleging conspiracies and making fallacious arguments, they actually provide data.

Labels: general discussion