Denialism

Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists. Such groups and individuals are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes by using rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.^[1][2][3]

The term was first used in the sense of 'holocaust denialism', but the usage has broadened to include 'AIDS denialism',^{[4][5][6][7][8]} 'vaccine denialism,^[9][10][11] 'climate change denialism'^[12][13][14] and 'evolution denialism'.^[15]

Illegitimate methodology and tactics

Denialism is a form of propaganda covering a variety of activities. It can be as simple as like-minded individuals signing letters of dissent, or as elaborate as professional grey or black propaganda campaigns by advertising and marketing agencies.

Denialism can arise from personal ideologies, or desire for profit. Industry groups may seek to protect markets from damaging facts and information. Political groups may work to advance their agendas. Combinations of these may work in concert with interest groups on issues of mutual importance. Despite the disparity between these groups and the motives behind them, the tactics used by denialists are largely similar. Common features include:^[16]

• Conspiracism - Suggesting scientists have an ulterior motive for their research, or that they are part of some hidden plan or agenda.^[17]
• Selectivity - Relying upon discredited or flawed work supporting their idea while dismissing more credible work; presenting discredited or superseded papers to make a field look like it is based on weak research. Inflating favorable 'evidence' while discounting the contradictory, often while misrepresenting the significance of each. The selective use of evidence by denialists includes quote mining and cherry picking.
• False experts - Citing paid, partisan scientists or self-appointed 'experts,' whose credentials are often in an unrelated field.^[18][19][20]
• Impossible expectations - Seeking to prevent the implementation of sound policies or acceptance of a theory by citing the absence of 'complete' or 'absolute' knowledge.
• Misrepresentations and logical fallacies - Denialists sometimes employ logical fallacies: red herring; straw man; appeal to consequences; false analogy. An example of the misuse of analogy in arguments is the watchmaker analogy. A common misrepresentation used in the intelligent design movement is the intentional use of the term Darwinism when what is being objected to is evolution. An example of an appeal to consequences is the common neo-creationist claim that an acceptance of evolution (Darwinism) leads to social ills such as the atrocities committed by Hitler's Nazi regime,^[21] providing also an example of the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy often used by denialists and an example of cherry-picking, since Hitler also appealed to religion, germ theory, and animal husbandry. Another common fallacy, often used in conjunction with impossible expectations, is the false dilemma fallacy, whereby unless there is an absolute proof of an assertion, the assertion is claimed false.

Additional propaganda techniques that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid include: flag-waving, glittering generalities, thought-terminating clichés, intentional vagueness, oversimplification, rationalization, slogans, stereotyping, testimonial, unstated assumption.

Ideological denialism

Ideologies that conflict with commonly accepted scientific theories or facts can drive their holders to engage in personal forms of denial, either to favor their personal beliefs, or to avoid having to reconcile those beliefs with contradictory evidence.^[22]

Common forms of denialism arising from ideologies are Holocaust denial, Holodomor denial, AIDS denialism, the vaccine controversy, and the creation-evolution controversy.^[23]

Corporate denialism

International corporations such as ExxonMobil have been criticized for contributing to scientists and scientific experimentation questioning the scientific consensus on global climate change.^[12] ExxonMobil has strenuously denied the accusations, stating that "The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions."^[24] Newsweek^[25] and Mother Jones^[26] have published articles stating corporations are funding the climate change denial "denial industry".

Political denialism

The Bush Administration's replacement of previous science advisers with industry experts or scientists tied to industry, and its refusal to submit the Kyoto Protocol for ratification due to uncertainties they asserted were present in the climate change issue, have been cited as examples of politically motivated denialism by the press.^[25][27][28] The general class of genocide denial, of which holocaust denial is a subset, is another form of political denialism.^[29]

See also

• Denial
• Agnotology
• Anti-intellectualism
• Artificial controversy
• Astroturfing
• Creation science
• Disinformation
• False flag
• Fear, uncertainty and doubt
• Galileo Gambit
• Heresy
• Non-denial denial
• Obscurantism
• Politicization of science
• Politics of global warming
• Propaganda
• Historical revisionism
• Tax protester
• Keith Windschuttle

References