A lot of people deny science. The last President of the United States was the epitome of science denialism. Right behind Donald Trump is Majorie Taylor Greene, a Republican legislator from Georgia.
However, it is important to point out that although science denialism is rampant in America’s society, it is not a new phenomenon. David L. Levine, in his 2018 Scientific American article, points out that one of the earliest examples of science denialism was in 1847. A Hungarian obstetrician (Ignaz Semmelweis) urged his colleagues to wash their hands before examining women about to deliver babies to help prevent the malady known as “childbed” fever. According to Levin, Semmelweis was laughed at, and ignored. Fast forward to 2020 and the onset of COVID-19. Hand washing was one of the few non-pharmaceutical options we had to help prevent the spread of the virus. There are many other examples of science denialism. Here are a few.
- The tobacco industry fabricated for decades the effect of smoking on human health, especially respiratory diseases and lung cancer. Big Tobacco provided a blueprint on how to use misinformation to undermine topics such as evolution, vaccines, and climate change.
- Religious groups have created “intelligent design,” the classic case of denying Darwin’s Origin of Species. The Discovery Institute is the leading advocate for imposing non-science ideas about life on earth into high school biology courses. Intelligent design is not only propaganda; it is an excellent example of a conspiracy theory.
- Oil and gas industries have spent hundreds of millions of dollars undermining global warming and climate change.
Science Deniers have 5 characteristics in Common
According to Lee McIntyre, a research fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science, Boston University, science deniers have much in common. In a recent speech (Figure 1), How to Talk to a Science Denier, McIntyre identifies five characteristics of science deniers.
- They cherry pick their evidence.
- Believe and use conspiracy theories
- Rely on fake experts and denigrate real experts.
- They rely on illogical reasoning
- Insist that science has to be perfect.
Together, these provide a common blueprint for science deniers to create a counter-narrative on any topic where they wish to challenge the scientific consensus.
McIntyre, Lee. How to Talk to a Science Denier (p. 33). MIT Press. Kindle Edition.
Interesting Article. Only I find these to be attributes of most insincere “Climate Alarmists” wishing to divert attention from any and all legitimate science that contradicts their frenzied claims. Of course the obvious intent of such labels is to obfuscate and squelch any contrary valid information and shut down valid discussions. Example given, several analyses of Michael Mann’s “data” has demonstrated it to have been cherry-picked and interbred with variant forms of measurement that were not equivalent or even comparable. See for example, “Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate” by S. Fred Singer (Past President NAS) or “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters), by Steven E. Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science, U.S. Department of Energy, Under the Obama Administration.