There is one aspect of denialism that really busts my noggin. I find it so hard to get my mind around that I struggle to even put it into words, but I’ll have a go.
Why is it that all denialists, regardless of what they are denying, are so very keen to produce scientific “data” that backs up their claims? They invariably claim that any evidence that opposes their ideology is either flawed or the result of conspiracy; yet, they fall over themselves to find someone in a white coat, however dodgy, to publicly back them up. Why can’t they see the hypocrisy of their actions?
Whenever yet another study shows homoeopathy works no better than placebo, homoeopaths say their treatments can’t be tested by the scientific method. Yet, they are desperate to fill their explanations with sciencey sounding words and to produce their remedies using a parody of what happens every day in labs all over the world.
Climate change deniers claim all scientists are frauds, and then wheel out misrepresented paper after misrepresented paper in support of their own position.
This is double think on a staggering level and it leaves me quite stunned that so many are capable of such cognitive dissonance on such a scale.
I suppose I shouldn’t be so surprised really. I see it everywhere I look in our day-to-day human interactions and disputes and so it really shouldn’t surprise me that we are so good at using it for things like this!
Anyway, here’s 6 tactics denialists use from Martin McKee:
1. Allege that there’s a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
2. Use fake experts to support your story. “Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility,” says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist “both sides” must be heard and cry censorship when “dissenting” arguments or experts are rejected.
