Denying the Existence of Consensus or Denying its Probative Value? A Critique of McIntyre’s Proposal Concerning Science Denial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2024.e93904Keywords:
Science Denial, "Tobacco Strategy", AGW Denial, Flat-Eartherism, Anti-Vaxxerism, McIntyre, LeeAbstract
In this article, we try to argue, against McIntyre’s proposal in How to talk to a science denier, that there is a relevant difference between various forms of science denialism. Specifically, we contend that there is a significant distinction to be made between those forms of denialism which deny the existence of an expert consensus (the model of which is the strategy of the tobacco companies in the 1950s) and those which deny the probatory value of such expert consensus (on the basis, e.g., of conspiracy theories involving scientists). While McIntyre and others advocate for the value of communicating consensus as an effective and perfectly rational strategy against those forms of denialism which deceivingly deny the existence of scientific agreement, we argue that this approach becomes question-begging against those which deny its probatory value. Accordingly, then, we object to McIntyre’s characterization that “all science denial is basically the same” and suggest a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon.
References
About the Forest. n.d.. Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study. https://hubbardbrook.org/about-the-forest/ Access: 12.03.2023
Acid Deposition: Atmospheric Processes in Eastern North America. 1983. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/182 Access: 12.03.2023
Acid Deposition: Long-Term Trends. 1986. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/623 Access: 12.03.2023
American Petroleum Institute. 1998. Global Science Climate Communications. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2840903/1998-API-Global-Climate-Science-Communications.pdf Access: 10.03.2023
Anderson, E. 2011. Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony. Episteme, 8(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2011.0013
Atmosphere-Biosphere Interactions: Toward a Better Understanding of the Ecological Consequences of Fossil Fuel Combustion. 1981. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/135
Braman, D.; Grimmelmann, J.; Kahan, D. 2007. Modeling Cultural Cognition (SSRN Scholarly Paper 1000449). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1000449
Brody, I.; Hershfield, H. 2021. How Elvis Got Americans to Accept the Polio Vaccine. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-elvis-got-americans-to-accept-the-polio-vaccine/ Access: 9.03.2023
Chivers, T. 2021. How not to talk to a science denier. UnHerd. https://unherd.com/2021/08/how-not-to-talk-to-a-science-denier/ Access: 01.04.2023
Cook, J. 2016. Closing the “consensus gap” by communicating the scientific consensus on climate change and countering misinformation. https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Cook_dissertation.pdf Access:15.03.2023
Cook, J. 2017. Understanding and countering climate science denial. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, 150(465/466), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.388378410941383
Cook, J. 2020. A history of FLICC: The 5 techniques of science denial. Skeptical Science. https://skepticalscience.com/history-FLICC-5-techniques-science-denial.html Access: 12.03.2023
Cook, J.; Lewandowsky, S.; Ecker, U. K. H. 2017. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS ONE, 12(5), e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
Cotter, J.; Contiero, M.; Zimmermann, D.; Maillot, J. 2015. Twenty years of failure—Why GM crops have failed to deliver on their promises. Hamburg: Greenpeace.
Damico, J. S.; Panos, A.; Myers, M. 2018. Digital Literacies and Climate Change: Exploring Reliability and Truth(s) with Pre-service Teachers. In E. Ortlieb, E. H. Cheek, & P. Semingson (Eds.), Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation (Vol. 9, pp. 93–107). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2048-045820180000009007
Diethelm, P.; Mckee, M. 2009. Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond? European Journal of Public Health, 19, 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139
Ding, D.; Maibach, E. W.; Zhao, X.; Roser-Renouf, C.; Leiserowitz, A. 2011. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1(9), 462–466. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1295
Dubé, E.; Gagnon, D.; MacDonald, N. E.; SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. 2015. Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: Review of published reviews. Vaccine, 33(34), 4191–4203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.041
Dubé, E.; Laberge, C.; Guay, M.; Bramadat, P.; Roy, R.; Bettinger, J. A. 2013. Vaccine hesitancy. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 9(8), 1763–1773. https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.24657
Dyrendal, A.; Jolley, D. 2020. Conspiracy Theories in the Classroom: Problems and Potential Solutions. Religions, 11(10), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11100494
Edelsztein, V.; Cormick, C. 2023. Análisis del movimiento antivacunas en Twitter: Una perspectiva latinoamericana. JCOM-América Latina.
Global Warming Petition Project. 2007. http://www.petitionproject.org Access: 30.03.2023
Goldenberg, M. J. 2021. Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, And The War On Science (1st Edition). University Of Pittsburgh Press.
Goldman, A. I. 2001. Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.2307/3071090
Gross, L. 2009. A Broken Trust: Lessons from the Vaccine–Autism Wars. PLOS Biology, 7(5), e1000114. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000114
Guerrero, E. 2022. Evidence-Laden Narratives, Science Denial, and Covid-19: A Study Of Student Thinking, Motivation, and Risk Perception in General Education Biology. https://www.proquest.com/openview/2c001257528d06b35222fe5bd164e091/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Access: 27.03.2023
Hasher, L.; Goldstein, D.; Toppino, T. 1977. Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80012-1
Hobson-West, P. 2007. ‘Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: Organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(2), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00544.x
Hoffman, B. L.; Felter, E. M.; Chu, K.-H.; Shensa, A.; Hermann, C.; Wolynn, T.; Williams, D.; Primack, B. A. 2019. It’s not all about autism: The emerging landscape of anti-vaccination sentiment on Facebook. Vaccine, 37(16), 2216–2223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.03.003
Hoofnagle, M. 2007. About | ScienceBlogs. https://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about Access: 25.11.2022
Ingold, J. 2018. We went to a flat-Earth convention and found a lesson about the future of post- truth life. https://coloradosun.com/2018/11/20/flat-earth-convention-denver-post-truth/ Access: 2.12.2022
Kahan, D. M.; Braman, D. 2005. Cultural Cognition and Public Policy (SSRN Scholarly Paper 746508). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=746508
Kata, A. 2012. Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine, 30(25), 3778–3789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112
Lewandowsky, S.; Armaos, K.; Bruns, H.; Schmid, P.; Holford, D. L.; Hahn, U.; Al-Rawi, A.; Sah, S.; Cook, J. 2022. When science becomes embroiled in conflict: Recognizing the public’s need for debate while combating conspiracies and misinformation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 26–40.
Lewandowsky, S.; Cook, J. 2020. The Conspiracy Theory Handbook. http://sks.to/conspiracy Access: 9.8.2022
Lewandowsky, S.; Cook, J.; Lloyd, E. 2018. The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: Simulating coherence by conspiracism. Synthese, 195(1), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6
Lewandowsky, S.; Cook, J.; Lombardi, D. 2020. Debunking Handbook 2020. https://doi.org/10.17910/B7.1182
Lewandowsky, S.; Cook, J.; Schmid, P.; Holford, D.; Finn, A.; Lombardi, D.; Al-Rawi, A.; Thomson, A.; Leask, J.; Juanchich, M.; Anderson, E.; Sah, S.; Vraga, E.; Gavaruzzi, T.; Rapp, D.; Amazeen, M.; Sinatra, G.; Kendeou, P.; Armaos, K.; … Hahn, U. 2022. The COVID-19 vaccine communication handbook. A practical guide for improving vaccine communication and fighting misinformation. https://open.bu.edu/handle/2144/44893
Lewandowsky, S.; Gignac, G. E.; Vaughan, S. 2013. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720
Lewandowsky, S.; van der Linden, S. 2021. Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology, 32(2), 348–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983
Liu, D. 2012. Science Denial and the Science Classroom. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11, 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0029
Luntz, F. 2003. The environment: A cleaner, safer, healthier America. https://www.sindark.com/NonBlog/Articles/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf
Lynas, M. 2018. Seeds of Science_ Why We Got It So Wrong On GMOs. Bloomsbury Sigma. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=37425c6075aabbd7281e0e529e43ed49
Matos, J. C. 2014. Comentário. Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia, 33(2), 125–126.
McIntyre, L. 2021. How to talk to a science denier: Conversations with flat earthers, climate deniers, and others who defy reason. MIT Press.
McKee, M.; Diethelm, P. 2010. How the growth of denialism undermines public health. BMJ, 341(dec14 1), c6950–c6950. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6950
Metz, S. E.; Weisberg, D. S.; Weisberg, M. 2018. Non-Scientific Criteria for Belief Sustain Counter-Scientific Beliefs. Cognitive Science, 42(5), 1477–1503. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12584
Michaels, D. 2008. Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Oxford University Press.
Nierenberg, W. A. 1984. Report of the Acid Rain Peer Review Panel, July 1984. Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Nuccitelli, D. 2018. Trump thinks scientists are split on climate change. So do most Americans. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/22/trump-thinks-scientists-are-split-on-climate-change-so-do-most-americans
Olshansky, A. 2018. Conspiracy Theorizing and Religious Motivated Reasoning: Why the Earth ‘Must’ Be Flat. https://hdl.handle.net/2346/82666
Olshansky, A.; Peaslee, R. M.; Landrum, A. R. 2020. Flat-Smacked! Converting to Flat Eartherism. Journal of Media and Religion, 19(2), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2020.1774257
Oreskes, N.; Conway, E. M. 2011. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change (Reprint edition). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Peters, M. A.; Besley, T. 2020. Education and the New Dark Ages? Conspiracy, social media and science denial. https://doi.org/10.46786/ac20.3082
Roach, A.; Clifton, K. 2020. Covid skeptics and anti-vaxxers clash with police at London protest. Evening Standard. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/trafalgar-square-protest-london-coronavirus-a4551266.html
Rorty, R. 2000. Universality and Truth. In R. Brandom (Ed.), Rorty and his critics (p. 30). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Rosenau, J. 2012. Science denial: A guide for scientists. Trends in Microbiology, 20(12), 567–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2012.10.002
Sargent, M. (Director). 2015. FLAT EARTH Clues Part 1—Empty Theatre—Mark Sargent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFYaT-U82JY
Sharma, K.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y. 2022. COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation Campaigns and Social Media Narratives. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 16, 920–931. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19346
Sunstein, C. R.; Vermeule, A. 2009. Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures*. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(2), 202–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x
The Marshall Institute—Remembering Frederick Seitz. 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110128190713/http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=579 Access: 12.03.2023
To 11 million Brazilians, the Earth is flat. 2020. France 24. https://www.france24.com/en/20200228-to-11-million-brazilians-the-earth-is-flat
US EPA, O. 2015. U.S.-Canada Air Quality Agreement [Reports and Assessments]. https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/us-canada-air-quality-agreement Access: 09.04.2023
van der Linden, S.; Leiserowitz, A. A.; Feinberg, G. D.; Maibach, E. W. 2015. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
van der Linden, S.; Leiserowitz, A.; Rosenthal, S.; Maibach, E. 2017. Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
van der Linden, S.; van der, Leiserowitz, A.; Maibach, E. 2018. Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0259-2
van der Wiel, K. 2015. Characteristics of climate science denial. https://www.scisnack.com/2015/07/03/climate-science-denial/ Access: 22.03.2023
World Health Organization. 2016. Best practice guidance: How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public. 21, 2017.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Claudio Javier Cormick, Dr. Valeria Edelsztein
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Principia http://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/index is licenced under a Creative Commons - Atribuição-Uso Não-Comercial-Não a obras derivadas 3.0 Unported.
Base available in www.periodicos.ufsc.br.
