"Just because some people believe in stupid things, doesn’t make them denialists."
Mark Hoofnagle
Through another class, I came across a paper about "denialism" concerning health issues. However, the essence and tactics of denying something spans pretty much all topics, and the paper and related blogs quoted creationalism, AIDS, tobacco and global warming as being under attack using the same methods.(upon inspection, it looks to me like the tactics may have really been first published relating to climate change anyways on a blog. see Below.)
The general definition of scientific denialism is the "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" (Diethelm P and McKee M).
Deniers implement five main tactics: conspiracy, cherry-picking, fake experts, impossible expectations and general fallacies of logic (Diethelm P and McKee M). The journal article touches lightly on them but Mark at Science Blogs goes into each one very nicely in his personal blog. My favorite trusty ol' website Skeptical Science does as well.)
Denialism is simply about the tactics used to hinder thoughtful and valid communication. Every scientist can not argue with every single person that doesn't believe in climate change (though can lead to some very entertaining and very long blog comments!) However if the common mass, or even better, the media itself can recognize what is being done, a more useful debate can take place.
My favorite point comes from Mark at science blogs. He points out that these denialists have the upper hand by being virtually unlimited by make things up, whereas the scientists are limited by data and have to devalue each error described by the opposer. They aren't interested in the truth or data, just that what they say is the last word (Hoofnagle M).
The general public often believe what is erroneously portrayed because the argument is NOT as wild or frightening, as opposed to hearing you will be under water from X cm of sea level rise, for example. They prey on emotions and are therefore very influential on the mostly uninformed general public
In going, the point is: don't bother arguing with the "cranks" (you will be there all day), but DO discuss data and science with those that really want to have a legitimate conversation and become informed.
Cook J. Skeptical Science. The Five Characteristics of Scientific Denialism. Accessed 28 October 2013. http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html
Diethelm P and McKee M. Denialism: What is it and How Should Scientists Respond. European Journal of Public Health. 2009. Vol. 19, No. 1, 2–4.
Hoofnagle M. Denialism Blog. 2007. Accessed 28 October 2013. http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/
No comments:
Post a Comment