Science denialism

One of the most serious problems facing science communication is that of well funded and well organised movements of science denialism. The adherents of these movements completely reject certain aspects of mainstream science and no amount of persuasive evidence or reasoned argument will help them change there mind. Some examples of science denialism include creationism (aka intelligent design), anti-vaccination (aka Jenny McCarthyism), AIDS denial, and climate denial.

Proponents of science denial often defend their views with great zeal and effort. Yet apart from the one or two areas where they refuse to trust mainstream science, they are often logical and rational people. It is not hard to explain why someone who begins down the path of science denialism often finds it difficult to claw their way back to reality. Once a denialist has made a commitment to a particular anti-science idea, self-justification will allow them to overlook bias and ignore disconfirming evidence. These cognitive processes can quickly lead to an entrenched opinion which is fundamentally anti-scientific and almost impossible to dislodge. The problematic outcome is compounded by the availability of flagrantly false material over the internet and a sense of entitlement, that ones opinions should be valued at the same rate as an expert’s. However, this does not explain why a denialist would take that first false step, even when they appeared to have every opportunity to do otherwise.

I think there are two factors at play, pre-judgements and logical mis-steps. Pre-judgements occur due to our pre-existing biases and beliefs. They can take the form of ideologies, religions, or simply prior attitudes and assumptions. These biases cloud our judgement making us more likely to take our first step in the wrong direction, away from science and towards denialism. Creationism/Intelligent Design is a prime example of pre-judgement over-ruling the scientific approach. When a Christian approaches the evidence for evolution with “Biblical glasses” they’ve already closed their minds to disconfirming facts. The choice to go against the evidence was, in effect, already made when they chose to approach the question from their religious viewpoint. It is impossible to eliminate bias or to completely step outside your ideology/religion but the point is to be aware of what they are and be prepared to accept findings that contradict your previous ideas. This is what it means to have an open mind.

The second factor that sends someone onto the denial path is a logical mis-step. These occur because our brains are wired to take short-cuts in thinking, these short-cuts can be convenient but they frequently give us the wrong answer. A prominent example of this type of thinking is to confuse correlation with causation. This error frequently occurs in the vaccine denialist movement where the childhood vaccination schedule correlates with the onset of autism. Despite the total lack of evidence that vaccinations actually cause autism, for many parents the correlation is sufficient to take the first step towards denialism. Another frequent mis-step is to consider the consequences of a scientific point of view rather than considering the evidence. If evolution is true then we are related to monkeys, if HIV causes AIDS then I’m seriously ill, if global warming is true then the Earth is FUBAR. Because each of the consequences is detrimental (to our health or civilisation or concept of self) we will be sorely tempted to deny the science behind these facts. If we choose to disbelieve science based solely on the unpleasant consequences, then we have made a logical mis-step. The good news is that just being aware of logical errors helps to guard against making them. Learning critical thinking skills will prevent people from becoming denialists.

Once self-justification sets in, getting someone to give up their form of science denial is almost impossible. It will usually require a great deal of time, effort, and patience – with no guarantee of success. By contrast, preventing people from entering the denailism path is much easier and much more likely to succeed. As sceptics, freethinkers, and scientists this is where our energy should be going. Countering nonsense is unlikely to change any minds, but it is likely to prevent further minds from rejecting reality.