Denialism as Applied Skepticism: Philosophical and Empirical Considerations

Abstract

The scientific community, we hold, often provides society with knowledge-that the HIV virus causes AIDS, that anthropogenic climate change is underway, that the MMR vaccine is safe. Some deny that we have this knowledge, however, and work to undermine it in others. It has been common (but not uncontroversial) to refer to such agents as "denialists". At first glance, then, denialism appears to be a form of skepticism. But while we know that various denialist strategies for suppressing belief are generally effective, little is known about which strategies are most effective. We see this as an important first step toward their remediation. This paper leverages the approximate comparison to various forms of philosophical skepticism to design an experimental test of the efficacy of four broad strategies of denial at suppressing belief in specific scientific claims. Our results suggest that assertive strategies are more effective at suppressing belief than questioning strategies.

The Social Bifurcation of Reality: Symmetrical Construction of Knowledge in Science-Trusting and Science-Distrusting Discourses

“…In what follows we will refer to science-denialist, contrarian, and suspicious discourses on major topics with the simpler label of science-distrusting , following Slater et al in acknowledging their shared apprehension of the scientific consensus and the findings of mainstream science ( Slater et al, 2020 ). Nuances are important, and, for example, Torcello (2016) proposes to differentiate contrarian skepticism, which he calls “pseudoskepticism,” from the institutionalized skepticism of normal science.…”

What Is Denialism? An Examination and Classification of Definitional Approaches and Relevant Actors

“…Finally, if a number of these actors collude to deny scientific findings or to deliberately diffuse controversy, this is referred to as the denial machine (Cagle and Herndl 2019;Slater et al 2020). As engines of science denial, for example, think tanks are funded by the fossil fuel or tobacco industries to stall or delay regulation (Cann and Raymond 2018;Slater et al 2020). Seventy-two percent of publications doubting man-made climate change are from conservative think tanks (Johnson 2021).…”

“…This has the effect of muddying the waters so that lay audiences are convinced that there is a balanced debate on the issue and that there is no scientific consensus. In consequence, social consensus is not formed either (Slater et al 2020). Further, as part of the denial machine, astroturf organisations create the artificial equivalent of a social movement by pretending to be grassroots movements while being financed and controlled by corporate or political entities (Bonds 2016).…”

“…Naive denial refers to denial that occurs due to ignorance of facts, while motivated denial occurs among those who actually have access to information and act against their better knowledge (Björnberg et al 2017, p. 237). Similarly, active and passive denial differentiates between denialists' level of knowledge: knowingly acting against the evidence is considered an active denial event (Slater et al 2020). While denialism refers to motivated, systematic action, denial can also imply an individually passive action.…”

Trust of Science as a Public Collective Good

“…It seems that scientists can’t make up their minds! How do we know whom to trust?” 6 This is, of course, the very dynamic that climate denialists have been exploiting for decades: Create doubt using the illusion of dissent through Potemkin science (Slater et al 2020). Science involves plenty of dissent.…”