Science Denialism by Ella Putnal #9

Science Denialism is when people argue that established scientific theories are wrong, not based on scientific merit but rather on subjective ideology. People and organizations use science denial as a rhetorical argument against issues or ideas they oppose.  

There are 5 techniques of science denialism:

Science denial typically uses three false arguments. 

The first tries to undermine the credibility of the 

science conclusion by making a claim that 

that the research methods are flawed, or

the theory isn’t universally accepted. Science is based on 

falsifiability, so scientists avoid claiming universal 

truths and use language that conveys uncertainty. 

This allows for scientific ideas to change and 

evolve as more evidence is uncovered. 

 
 The second argument claims that researchers are not objective and motivated by ideology or economic agenda. This is an ad hominem argument in which a person’s character is attacked instead of the merit of their argument. They claim that the results have been manipulated so researchers can justify asking for more funding. They claim that because the researchers are funded by a federal grant, they are using their results to lobby for expanded government regulation. 

 
 

And then the third argument is to demand a balanced view, equal time in media coverage and educational curricula, to engender the illusion of two equally valid arguments. Science deniers often demand equal coverage of their proposals, even when there is little scientific evidence supporting their ideology. For example, science deniers might demand religious explanations to be taught as an alternative to the well-established theory of evolution. Or that all possible causes of climate change be discussed as equally probable, regardless of the body of evidence. Conclusions derived using scientific method shouldn’t be confused with those based on ideologies. 

 
 

Conclusions about nature derived from ideologies have no place in science research and education. For example, it wouldn’t be appropriate to teach the flat earth model in a modern geology course because this idea has been disproved by scientific method. Unfortunately, though, widespread scientific illiteracy allows these arguments to be used to suppress scientific knowledge and spread misinformation. 

 
 

The formation of new conclusions based on the scientific method is the only way to change scientific conclusions. We wouldn’t teach flat earth geology along with plate tectonics because flat earth ears don’t follow the scientific method. The fact that scientists avoid universal truths and change their ideas as more evidence is discovered shouldn’t be seen as meaning that science is unsettled. Because of widespread scientific illiteracy, these arguments are used by those who wish to suppress science and misinform the general public. 

 
 

In a classic case of science denial, beginning in the 1960s and for the next three decades, the tobacco industry and their scientists used rhetorical arguments to deny a connection between tobacco usage and cancer.

Once it became clear scientific studies overwhelmingly found that using tobacco dramatically increased a person’s likelihood of getting cancer, their next strategy was to create a sense of doubt about the science. The tobacco industry suggested that the results were not yet fully understood, and they needed to do more studying. They used this doubt to lobby for delaying legislative action that would warn consumers of the potential health hazards. This same tactic is currently being employed by those who deny the significance of human involvement in climate change. 

 
 

Geologists, scientists, or anyone exploring scientific inquiry must discern valid sources of information from pseudoscience and misinformation. This evaluation is especially important in scientific research because scientific knowledge is respected for its reliability. At its roots, quality information comes from the scientific method, beginning with the empirical thinking of Aristotle. The application of the scientific method helps produce unbiased results. A valid inference or interpretation is based on objective evidence or data. Credible data and inferences are clearly labeled, separated, and differentiated. Scientific procedures are clearly defined so the investigation can be replicated to confirm the original results or expanded further to produce new results. These measures make a scientific inquiry valid and its use as a source reputable. Of course, substandard work occasionally slips through, and retractions are published from time to time. An infamous article linking the MMR vaccine to autism appeared in the highly reputable journal Lancet in 1998. Journalists discovered the author had multiple conflicts of interest and fabricated data, and the article was retracted in 2010. 

 
 

In addition to methodology, data, and results, the authors of a study should be investigated. An author’s credibility is based on multiple factors, such as having a degree in a relevant topic or being funded from an unbiased source. 

The same rigor should be applied to evaluating the publisher, ensuring the results reported come from an unbiased process.

It is important to go through a fact-checking process to ensure that the source you are looking at is credible and reliable.