The cult of denialism

[DrS]

I've just enjoyed reading THIS article by Keith Kahn-Harris in New Humanist dealing with "the cult of denialism".

He quotes a list of list of “five general tactics used by denialists to sow confusion”, namely conspiracy, selectivity, use of fake experts, moving the goalposts, and general logical fallacies. He goes on to say:

In any case, the debunking of denialism is often of only limited use. While it is important that denialism does not go unchallenged, it is nevertheless largely impervious to that challenge. It may be that the open-minded person looking for answers will be convinced by the debunker rather than the denier, yet deniers and those convinced by them are by their very nature not open-minded people looking for answers.

Is there anything that can be done in this impasse, or is there anything that indeed should be done?

[chaggle]

Fascinating article - (some of which I didn't entirely agree with BTW)

But as to your question, his last paragraph:

Which brings us back to Stan Cohen. He thinks the preoccupation with debunking denialists is part of the problem: “You get the impression from reading the debunking literature that these people are not aware of the last 30 years in the social sciences. They see themselves as old-fashioned rationalists. They’re often actively hostile – they are themselves naive.” Instead Cohen thinks we need “to find a path between a radical relativism that doesn’t allow for any notion of truth and an old-fashioned commitment to the only truth.”

That's what Cohen thinks we need to do apparently - any idea what it means?

[DrS]

Well it seems to me a bit of a platitude, saying we need a balance between disbelieving everything and using scholarly or scientific consensus to stifle all debate. Meaningless, if that's what he's trying to say.

Like you, I found I disagreed with some of the piece, though not much. One thing in particular that jarred was the continuation of the paragraph I quoted to begin with. He says :

Debunkers and denialists find themselves in a mutually created trap. Neither side can convince the other, they both find themselves desperately fighting for the support of the uncommitted. Both sides are convinced of the value of science and scholarship to support their cause.

I can't agree with this. Obviously it's only an opinion and could be wrong, but I don't think deniers operate from any conviction other than that the generally-accepted majority scientific consensus is normally if not always going to be wrong. I don't see them as engaged in a principled fight to gain support, but as would-be wreckers of an establishment that they are not (able to be) a part of. As such, I don't think they have any conviction of the "value of science and scholarship" other than the need to play by the rules of the field they're trying to undermine.

Having said that, he raises some thought-provoking questions, not least when he quotes George Monbiot saying "Perhaps we have to accept that there is no simple solution to public disbelief in science. ... If they don’t want to know, nothing and no one will reach them." As he says:

This despair may be understandable, but it reveals the limitations of the approaches used in the fight against denialism. Those who fight denialism tend to be either rationalistically minded debunkers or committed activists. Neither group are particularly well suited to looking at the deeper reasons behind denialism.

So who is so well suited? Psychiatrists? Is the problem really a simple one of a kind of social exclusion?

[Pebble]

Is there anything that can be done in this impasse, or is there anything that indeed should be done?

Great read, thanks. I think this has been the nature of scientific debate from the beginning. The only difference now is the web and the desire of politicians the have 'expert' advisors - ideally ones that agree with their preconceptions.

Scientists has craved being taken seriously in matters of government policy for decades or perhaps centuries, now they are, the messy nature of science and scientific progress/debate is being exposed to much more scrutiny. It is simply part of entering the grown up world, where the golves are off.

I don't think we should get too concerned about deniers - where there is a consensus and the evidence base is good logic will win on balance. There will of course be set backs, so it took longer to win the debate over tobacco than most felt appropriate - in the grand scheme of things this does not matter. As to religious fundamentalists using doubts about 9/11 or evolution, it would not really matter if this debate was not available, they would act in the same way anyway.

In the end of the day, I think that examining and re-examining the evidence base while tedious helps science close loop holes in the evidence that previously escaped scrutiny. Where the deniers claims prove unfounded because they failed to take a dispassionate view, this ultimately does them more damage than the sceince they are attacking.

[bryan]

That's what Cohen thinks we need to do apparently - any idea what it means?

He's saying that heretics should be burned at the stake.

[chaggle]

bryan this thread isn't about you. It's titled "The Cult of Denialism" not "The Cu*t of Denialism". Piss off.

[Pebble]

Fascinating article - (some of which I didn't entirely agree with BTW)

But as to your question, his last paragraph:


Which brings us back to Stan Cohen. He thinks the preoccupation with debunking denialists is part of the problem: “You get the impression from reading the debunking literature that these people are not aware of the last 30 years in the social sciences. They see themselves as old-fashioned rationalists. They’re often actively hostile – they are themselves naive.” Instead Cohen thinks we need “to find a path between a radical relativism that doesn’t allow for any notion of truth and an old-fashioned commitment to the only truth.”

That's what Cohen thinks we need to do apparently - any idea what it means?

He's saying that heretics should be burned at the stake.

Thank you bryan, you have just perfectly illustrated my point. With friends like you deniers have no need of enemies.

I think his Cohen's final statement means that there are some 'truths' but not as many as previously believed

[Admin]

Instead Cohen thinks we need “to find a path between a radical relativism that doesn’t allow for any notion of truth and an old-fashioned commitment to the only truth.”

That's what Cohen thinks we need to do apparently - any idea what it means?

Well it's only a snippet of Cohen's but it looks to me like he's warning against dogmatism. But I don't think scientists, skeptics, or "debunkers" take a dogmatic stance on things like global warming.

And there's quite a difference, IMO, between the kind of people who propagate misinformation and those who lap it up. Those who propagate misinformation know exactly what they're doing (via lessons from the tobacco debate as pointed out) and those who lap it up don't have a clue.

The main tactic seems to be that to create a conspiracy type position all you need to do is spread the idea that there is disagreement and uncertainty amongst the 'official version supporters' and so present it as a controversy. Then those who believe in conspiracies/misinformation - usually based upon their own ignorance, arguments to ignorance and personal incredulity - can fall for it very easily: proof to them is not provided by solid evidence for their position but by 'holes' in the 'official version'.

I saw a great lecture by someone who explained all of this. I'll see if I can find the link to the video.

[bryan]

bryan this thread isn't about you. It's titled "The Cult of Denialism" not "The Cu*t of Denialism". Piss off.

Sorry, I assumed that, by starting this thread in the only section I'm allowed to post in, DrS was inviting me to contribute.

[Admin]

Here's the talk I was on about. It's about an hour long but it's well worth spending the time watching it as it really is informative and explains some of what's going on behind denialism.

[DrS]

Sorry, I assumed that, by starting this thread in the only section I'm allowed to post in, DrS was inviting me to contribute.

Well wouldn't you know it. Wrong again.

I started a thread about the behaviour of people like you in this section because this section is about the behaviour of people like you. As I used to say to my daughter, we're talking about you, not to you.

[Pebble]

Here's the talk I was on about. It's about an hour long but it's well worth spending the time watching it as it really is informative and explains some of what's going on behind denialism.

Very informative. However, I disagree that just because the motives of these men are questionable and their techniques unsavoury, that we should not engage with their arguments. Scientific method evolves, the technique of questioning the robustness of the science is a valid skeptical method. Like the original questioners of religious dogma, it is our ability to win the argument despite such deniers that will determine whether current world views holds or need revision. Consensus is no substitute for proof.

[bryan]

Well wouldn't you know it. Wrong again.

I started a thread about the behaviour of people like you in this section because this section is about the behaviour of people like you. As I used to say to my daughter, we're talking about you, not to you.

OK, I'll leave you to pat each other on the back.

[DrS]

That's a good boy.

[Matt]

Is there anything that can be done in this impasse, or is there anything that indeed should be done?

Teach critical thinking in schools, the syllabus to include logical fallacies and the hallmarks of denialism.

ETA Urggh! and the hallmarks of conspiracy theories too.