Denialism.com - A resource for countering denialist organizations, tactics and arguments. Don't Confuse Denialism with Debate!
About Denialism.com Who are we?What is Denialism? Who are the Denialists? The Denialist Deck of Cards
|
Sunday, March 18, 2007
What is denialism?
Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship. We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic. Adapted from Give Up Blog's post with permission.
 Suggesting scientists have some ulterior motive for their research or they are part of some conspiracy. The most basic example of this lie is to say that if the scientists discovered contrary findings they would lose their funding. The most severe example is to suggest scientists are engaged in some kind of elaborate "cover-up" or that they are part of the zionist conspiracy against the Aryan race. Whatever, it amounts to the same thing. Response: These criticisms reflect a total ignorance of how science, especially academic science, works from a practical standpoint. Not only do scientists love to discover things that run contrary to expectations and publish them, but it is precisely the exceptional results that generate a great deal of interest (although they also require a higher degree of skepticism). The papers published in Nature and Science aren't just essays saying "everything is fine." They are often revolutionary (and sometimes incorrect) papers describing unusual findings, powerful new findings, or things that represent a major coup of scientific diligence and work. Funding, while often rewarded to projects that don't take huge risks, is also heavily based on novelty, not maintaining some kind of party line. Further, the idea that scientists would ever work together in uniform to supress some piece of information is laughable. Scientists are in competition with eachother, and if something were being suppressed by a group it is usually only because they want to publish it first, and their competitors would love to beat them to it. Science is quite incompatible with keeping secrets or maintaining conspiracies, and to any actual scientists this is laughable. Denialists will often cite: a critical paper supporting their idea, or famously discredited or flawed papers meant to make the field look like a it's based on weak research. Quote mining is also an example of "selective" argument, by using a statement out of context, just like using papers or data out of context, they are able to sow confusion. Response: I've noticed this is common among the AIDS/HIV denialists (who have a discredited paper from 1987 they like to wave around and they pick on Gallo for fudging the initial identification of HIV), but also is a big thing among global warming deniars as described in the Guardian article. Some creationists like Jonathan Wells particularly enjoy using examples of failed theories supporting Darwinian evolution (like Haeckels' embryos) to suggest that the tens of thousands of other papers on the subject, and the entire basis of genetics, biology and biochemistry are wrong. The biggest problem here is that science doesn't "purge" the literature when these things are proven false and they stay there forever. It is up to the researcher to read more than the papers that support their foregone conclusion, they have to develop a theory that incorporates all the data, not just the data they like. Response: The global warming denialists have the greatest amount of money invested in the fake-expert strategy but they all pretty much use this tactic to some degree. Note that creationists and other anti-science types particularly will line up behind MDs to support their crap, because a lot of doctors are graduated in this country, and even though they technically have a degree in science, they've never actually done it themselves and it's never to hard to find some quack with an MD to back up your line of bullshit. I would point you, for example, to the Presidential Council on Bioethics which is full of MDs gleaned for their ideological slant, with no real scientific legitimacy (Krauthammer being the most glaring example). I'm not maligning MD researchers who do exist, but it is a strategy used to give a patina of legitimacy to otherwise laughable ideas. Response: This is a big one with global warming deniers. To state the problem metaphorically, it's like saying until you've figured out the exact momentum, moment of inertia, time dilation, length contraction, and relativistic position of a car in several reference frames that is speeding at you, you shouldn't jump out of the way. Since global warming is very complicated, they use this mixed appeal to ignorance and inaction to suggest until we understand climate 100%, we should do nothing. Never mind that this is impossible, but that is the expectation. A reasonable person would instead suggest that once you have enough data that suggest a change of behavior, or change of policy is warranted, it would be prudent to take that data under consideration and change things before we're all under water. You don't need to know the position of every molecule in the galaxy before deciding you need to jump out of the way of a speeding train. Just like we don't need to have a perfect model of the earth's climate to understand that all the current data and simulations suggest decreasing carbon output is of critical importance right now, and not when humans have obtained some imaginary scientific nirvana. Response: I'm not purposefully setting up a straw man here, but this type of argument from false analogy is incredibly common as are other classic logical fallacies. One could argue many things, but it would be a waste of time because the situations described are silly and have nothing to do with human evolution. The analogies ignore the nature of evolution, suggest it's just totally random, ignore natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, ignore basic biology and create a totally artifical point of reference for a biological discussion. In short, metaphors have nothing to do with biology or evolution, but they are confusing and on the surface their logic sounds correct to many laymen. These are a hallmark of the "irreducible complexity" arguments of the creationist denialists, but other denialists have similar appeals to metaphor. But irreducible complexity arguments are all based on metaphors, while data from siRNA, knockout mice, humans with silent genetic defects, etc., indicate that cells and biological organisms are not irreducibly complex, and often can operate and adapt with less than a full complement of their ideal genetic code. There are quite a few gene knockout mice in which no phenotype has been observed, and anyone who has knocked genes out in cells with siRNA could tell you, an effect is no guarantee. Cells adapt to a number of situations and not all genes are required for healthy, viable offspring. Science is not about who has the best metaphor that makes the most sense to good ol' common folk. Data trumps metaphors every time. Recognizing these tactics is the first step towards debunking or just outright dismissing these dismal and distracting arguments that detract from legitimate debate and sow confusion about scientific fact. Labels: about |
Denialism (n): the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.
NY Times LA Times The Guardian BBC News SF Gate WSJ Science Links NatureScience NEJM JCI PLOS Biology PLOS Medicine Science Blogs A Blog Around the ClockAetiology Bad Science Conspiracy Factory Deltoid Give Up Blog Good Math, Bad Math The Intersection Pharyngula Respectful Insolence The Scienceblogs network Anti-Denialist Autism/Mercury Autism DivaNeurodiversity Bronze Dog Not Mercury Evolution The Panda's ThumbPharyngula Sandwalk Evolgen Evo Wiki Talk Reason The Talk Origins Archive Global Warming Real ClimateA Few Things Ill-Considered How to talk to a sceptic (AFTIC) Deltoid Stoat ClimateDenial Daily Grist Integrity of Science HIV/AIDS AetiologyAIDStruth.org AIDS.org AIDSmyth The Body - on denialists Alternative Medicine Respectful InsolenceCSICOP QuackWatch What alternative health practitioners might not tell you Skeptico NCCAM 9/11 Conspiracy busting Scientific AmericanPopular Mechanics Screwloosechange Debunking 9/11 Orac's Deconstruction Animal Testing Animal Crackers (archives) Research Defense Blog AnimalRights.net Pro-Test General Skepticism SkepticoConspiracy Factory Geek Counterpoint Photon in the Darkness Bad Science Respectful Insolence CSICOP Snopes Wiki Denialism Wiki
resources |
18 Comments:
The numbering of the sections all came out the same -- '1.'.
March 23, 2007 2:09 PM,
This is good stuff.
March 23, 2007 4:45 PM,
Hello,
What you refer to as rhetorical tactics, I call manipulation tactics. Denial is one of many manipulation tactics. But I agree, they also use logic fallacies. My point is there are two components to this: intellectual (false logic), emotional (manipulative). There's an excellent book called "In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People" by George K., Jr. Simon. READ IT PLEASE!! The book is written for the layperson regarding their personal relationships, but the information it contains applies equally well on the national level/political scene.
For a related blog article on Huffington Post, see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-reardon/dont-you-smell-a-rat-h_b_20727.html
Read the 2nd comment (mine) for more related info.
Keep up the good work!
March 28, 2007 9:32 PM,
Clear thinking, what a novel idea. Thanks for your honesty, great site. This in contrast to the treatment Richard Dawkins was given on FOX news recently.
April 24, 2007 11:23 AM,
Please explain to me the difference between using these denialism tactics, and the way you explained denialism in the first place..? The very explanations of the items themselves appear to use other denialism methods within the same list. You make an absurd metaphor of logic fallacy yourself when describing the criminization of citing impossible expactations (impossible, itself, cannot be proven, and is largely based on relative selectivity of credibility assigned to sets of evidence). The definition of denialism itself appears self-defeating.
April 30, 2007 11:11 AM,
I can't figure out what you're asking because your grammar is too mixed-up. Please try again.
April 30, 2007 11:13 AM,
Thanks. Clear argument. Have you read the Parenzee judgment in Australia? A significant defeat for AIDS denialism.
Zackie Achmat
May 11, 2007 2:04 PM,
"Not only do scientists love to discover things that run contrary to expectations and publish them, but it is precisely the exceptional results that generate a great deal of interest (although they also require a higher degree of skepticism)."
What a simplistic world.
1. You generalize by implying that ALL "scientists love to". Are you denying that some scientists don't love or don't even have the choice to run contrary to expectations because they have to earn their living?
2. Some scientists only get to earn their living by NOT running contrary to expectations. And some are simply not interested in going against their own believes.
The way you define denialism, Galileo Galilei would have been a perfect match.
May 30, 2007 2:34 PM,
Great article, thanks. I've added this link to my article examining second-hand smoke denialism. You may get a bit of traffic from second-hand smoke deniers as a result (hi Ben).
http://www.geocities.com/corporate_opposition
Also, here is a program from the CBC concerning global warming denialism and tobacco-lung cancer denialism.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
May 31, 2007 11:51 AM,
Another common tactic employed by denialists is to deflect potential criticisms by leveling accusations at their opponents that really apply to themselves. For example, second-hand smoke denialists frequently accuse the government and health organizations of "cherry picking" studies that show second-hand smoke to be dangerous. At the same time, these denialists will often cite a famously discredited study by epidemiologists James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat which purports to show only a weak association between second-hand smoke and lung cancer and heart disease, while completely ignoring the many non-tobacco industry funded studies that show a much stronger link.
http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=333
June 7, 2007 10:50 AM,
Tobacco and cancer was by no means the first corporate denialism campaign, aka FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). The original FUDmeisters were John Patterson, head of National Cash Register in the late 19th century, and his disciple Tom Watson, Sr., later head of IBM in the 20th century, starting long before computers.
But corporate FUD goes back to the first corporations in the 17th century, such as the British East India Company.
Business denialism goes back much further, to the Mercantilist economic theory, which claimed (among other things) that countries should try to enrich themselves at the expense of all others, using subsidies, trade restrictions, tariffs, and any other economic weapon that came to hand.
July 25, 2007 6:09 PM,
Cathy Bell wrote:
"Another common tactic employed by denialists is to deflect potential criticisms by leveling accusations at their opponents that really apply to themselves."
That's the Rove Doctrine. Didn't you know? Most Republican talking points are an attempt to accuse Democrats of what the Republicans do, but to get theirs in first. Like "Family Values" or "Soft on Terror" or "Flip-flopper" or "Culture of Life".
July 25, 2007 6:13 PM,
Found your blog trying to find research to debunk the CNW drivel on hybrid cars.
Thanks for the link to the MIT report.
I just wished the popular press would stop referencing this big pile of bio-diesel and start showing some disbelief in the denialist spin-doctors.
July 28, 2007 12:00 PM,
WooW =)
August 2, 2007 6:05 AM,
Cathy Bell is so very correct about the Second Hand Smoke deniers. They use all the classic excuses. Just look at some of the examples of denialism in this forum
http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking
August 10, 2007 8:40 PM,
Check out this article
The denial industry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/
story/0,,1875760,00.html
August 10, 2007 11:55 PM,
I came across this blog page while looking for a definition of "denialism"; however, I feel the definition here is less than satisfactory, as it does not clearly describe what I think is the most salient characteristic of denialism, which is the a priori presumption of a specific conclusion. In some cases, denialism is is constructed around refuting a particular undesired conclusion, as in Holocaust Denialism and Anthropogenic Global Warming Denialism. In other cases, however, the goal is more to “clear the decks” of an undesired conclusion in favor of a specific alternative, as in Evolution Denialism. In either case, the denialist has the luxury of being able build their arguments by working backwards from the desired result. This allows denialists to snipe away at “flaws” (whether real, imagined, or manufactured) in the opposing arguments. In contrast, the empiricist is constrained to reasoning forward to reach their conclusions through a sometimes confusing myriad of evidence. If the denialist were competing in archery, they would hit the bullseye every time, but rather than their arrows flying forward toward the target, they would fly backwards from the target into their bow. For the scientist, on the other hand, the precision and accuracy in “hitting the bullseye” (i.e. reaching a valid conclusion) will be dictated both by the strength of the model and the quality of the data. For example cientists modeling climate are constrained to arguing whether we can be 90% or 95% confident that recent climate history reflects an anthropogenic influence, while the AGW Denialist is 100% confident that either answer is wrong!
Another aspect of the definition that I don’t like is the stipulation that there is “no legitimate debate” regarding the conclusion that the denialist is denying. Even if the evidence is extremely strong however, (as in AGW), this sounds too much like “dogmatism”, which ironically is one of the (phony) arguments commonly made by denialists against those with whom they disagree. In reality, it is the pre-supposed conclusion of the denialist that is not subject to debate or falsification. It is for this reason that no amount of data or evidence will be sufficient to change their opinions. It is ill-advised to provide denialists with fodder for their cynical anti-scientific views by stating that there is no legitimate debate, even if this is effectively true!
This point was made very clear to me when discussing Creationism with a fundamentalist geology student I encountered a number of years ago. When I asked him how he was able to reconcile his beliefs with the ‘mountains’ of contradictory data, he replied with complete confidence that if the data seemed to contradict a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible (e.g. Earth is ~6,000 years old, etc.), then either the data or the interpretation of the data must be incorrect. He couldn’t say exactly in what way they were wrong, only that they were. This, of course, is not science at all, but religion. It is all the more ironic and exasperating, therefore, when a denialist argues, as they often do, that the conclusions they disagree with (e.g. evolution, or AGW) are nothing more than a “religion”, and are believed by their opponents “on faith”, not on the basis of evidence.
It is important to recognize that most denialist positions are rooted in social, political, or religious ideology. Adherents of particular denialist positions didn't just "think them up", nor in most cases did they arrive at their conclusions through and unbiased analysis of the evidence. Rather their conclusions arose in the context of some pre-existing framework or system of beliefs. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution sprang from empirical observations regarding the characteristics of living species, and has been successfully applied to the interpretation of the fossil record. In contrast, the competing theory of "Creationism" sprang from the pages of the Book of Genesis, and fails miserably at explaining the fossil record. Ironically, depending on one's beliefs regarding the origins of the Holy Scriptures, Creationism itself may have been based on empirical observations, albeit much more simplistic. In this regard, Creationism could be regarded as a primitive theory of the origin of species, but one for which there is essentially no valid evidence. (Therefore, it needn't be taught in science class!). Over the course of time, however, despite its shortcomings, Creationism has built up a very avid 'fan base'. Similarly, AGW Denialism apparently has a very strong appeal to many people. To understand the nature of AGW Denialism, it’s important to understand the roots of that appeal.
November 14, 2007 11:41 PM,
Some good ideas here, but I think you are in denial about 9/11. You sound like a babe in the woods on that subject. Please take the time to research the subject before attacking others. Thanks!
April 14, 2008 7:34 PM,
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home