Reverted 5 edits by Philip Baird Shearer; Please establish consensus for your changes. (TW) |
|||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> |
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> |
||
{{Rescue}} |
{{Rescue}} |
||
{{wiktionary}} |
{{wiktionary}} |
||
'''Denialism''' "is the refusal to accept an [[empiricism | empirically]] verifiable reality. It is an essentially [[Emotional|irrational]] action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event."<ref>Paul O'Shea, ''A Cross Too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917-1943'', Rosenberg Publishing, 2008. ISBN 1877058718. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_ZMaFfg0u-EC&pg=PA20&dq=denialism&lr= p.20].</ref> |
'''Denialism''' "is the refusal to accept an [[empiricism | empirically]] verifiable reality. It is an essentially [[Emotional|irrational]] action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event."<ref>Paul O'Shea, ''A Cross Too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917-1943'', Rosenberg Publishing, 2008. ISBN 1877058718. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_ZMaFfg0u-EC&pg=PA20&dq=denialism&lr= p.20].</ref> |
||
Anthropologist Didier Fassin distinguishes between ''denial'' - defined as "the empirical observation that reality and truth are being denied" and ''denialism'', which he defines as "an idealogical position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth".<ref name=Fassin-115>Didier Fassin, ''When bodies remember: experiences and politics of AIDS in South Africa'', Volume 15 of California series in public, University of California Press, 2007, ISBN 9780520250277. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jn9yoyuEV1YC&pg=PA115&f=false p. 115]</ref> |
Anthropologist Didier Fassin distinguishes between ''denial'' - defined as "the empirical observation that reality and truth are being denied" and ''denialism'', which he defines as "an idealogical position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth".<ref name=Fassin-115>Didier Fassin, ''When bodies remember: experiences and politics of AIDS in South Africa'', Volume 15 of California series in public, University of California Press, 2007, ISBN 9780520250277. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jn9yoyuEV1YC&pg=PA115&f=false p. 115] |
||
</ref> |
|||
The term has been used with "[[Holocaust denialism]]", and "[[AIDS denialism]]".<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = no| last = Kim | first = Richard | authorlink = Richard Kim | date = 2007-03-02 | title = Harper's Publishes AIDS Denialist | journal = [[The Nation]] | url = http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=65330}}</ref><ref name="smu_aids_pseudoscience"> Cotton, John L. and Randall J. Scalise. [http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/AIDS/ AIDS Denial is Pseudoscience]. Department of Physics Southern Methodist University.</ref><ref>{{cite journal | quotes = no | last = Sitze | first = Adam | date = 2004 | title = Denialism | journal = South Atlantic Quarterly | volume = 103 | issue = 4 | pages = 769–811 | url = http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/south_atlantic_quarterly/v103/103.4sitze.pdf | doi = 10.1215/00382876-103-4-769 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | quotes = no | last = Watson | first = James | date = 2006 | title = Scientists, activists sue South Africa's AIDS 'denialists' | journal = Nature Medicine | volume = 12 | issue = 1 | pages = 6 | url = http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v12/n1/pdf/nm0106-6a.pdf | doi = 10.1038/nm0106-6a }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | quotes = no | year = 2006 | title = Editorial: Denying science | journal = Nature Medicine | volume = 12 | issue = 4 | pages = 369 | url = http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v12/n4/pdf/nm0406-369.pdf | doi = 10.1038/nm0406-369 }}</ref> Other scientific facts and theories underpinning |
The term has been used with "[[Holocaust denialism]]", and "[[AIDS denialism]]".<ref>{{cite journal | quotes = no| last = Kim | first = Richard | authorlink = Richard Kim | date = 2007-03-02 | title = Harper's Publishes AIDS Denialist | journal = [[The Nation]] | url = http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=65330}}</ref><ref name="smu_aids_pseudoscience"> Cotton, John L. and Randall J. Scalise. [http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/AIDS/ AIDS Denial is Pseudoscience]. Department of Physics Southern Methodist University.</ref><ref>{{cite journal | quotes = no | last = Sitze | first = Adam | date = 2004 | title = Denialism | journal = South Atlantic Quarterly | volume = 103 | issue = 4 | pages = 769–811 | url = http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/south_atlantic_quarterly/v103/103.4sitze.pdf | doi = 10.1215/00382876-103-4-769 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | quotes = no | last = Watson | first = James | date = 2006 | title = Scientists, activists sue South Africa's AIDS 'denialists' | journal = Nature Medicine | volume = 12 | issue = 1 | pages = 6 | url = http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v12/n1/pdf/nm0106-6a.pdf | doi = 10.1038/nm0106-6a }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | quotes = no | year = 2006 | title = Editorial: Denying science | journal = Nature Medicine | volume = 12 | issue = 4 | pages = 369 | url = http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v12/n4/pdf/nm0406-369.pdf | doi = 10.1038/nm0406-369 }}</ref> Other scientific facts and theories underpinning |
||
Line 18: | Line 20: | ||
If one party to a debate accuses the other of ''denialism'' they are framing the debate, because denialism is prescriptive: it carries implications that there is a truth that the other side denies, and [[polemic]] because the accuser usually goes on to explain how the other party is denying the asserted truth and as such the other party is in the wrong, which leads to an implied accusation that if the accused party persist with the denial despite the evidence their motives must be false.<ref name=Fassin-115/> |
If one party to a debate accuses the other of ''denialism'' they are framing the debate, because denialism is prescriptive: it carries implications that there is a truth that the other side denies, and [[polemic]] because the accuser usually goes on to explain how the other party is denying the asserted truth and as such the other party is in the wrong, which leads to an implied accusation that if the accused party persist with the denial despite the evidence their motives must be false.<ref name=Fassin-115/> |
||
==Scientific consensus== |
|||
==Orthodoxy and heterodoxy== |
|||
Individuals or groups who reject propositions on which a [[scientific consensus|scientific or scholarly consensus]] exists can engage in ''denialism'' when they use [[rhetoric]]al tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.<ref>See, for example, {{cite journal | quotes = no | last = Stoff | first = Rick | authorlink = Rick Stoff | year = 2007 | month = June | title = 'Denialism' and muddying the waters | journal = [[St. Louis Journalism Review]] | volume = 37 | issue = 296 | pages = 21–33, 2p.}}{{Request quotation|date=July 2009|that supports this paragraph}}{{Verify source|date=September 2009}} |
Individuals or groups who reject propositions on which a [[scientific consensus|scientific or scholarly consensus]] exists can engage in ''denialism'' when they use [[rhetoric]]al tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.<ref>See, for example, {{cite journal | quotes = no | last = Stoff | first = Rick | authorlink = Rick Stoff | year = 2007 | month = June | title = 'Denialism' and muddying the waters | journal = [[St. Louis Journalism Review]] | volume = 37 | issue = 296 | pages = 21–33, 2p.}}{{Request quotation|date=July 2009|that supports this paragraph}}{{Verify source|date=September 2009}} |
||
</ref><ref name=Diethelm> |
</ref><ref name=Diethelm> |
||
{{cite journal | quotes = no | author = Diethelm, PA and McKee, M | date = 2009 | title = Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? | journal = European Journal of Public Health | volume = 19 | issue = 1 | pages = 2–4 | url = http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/19/1/2 | doi = 10.1093/eurpub/ckn139}}{{Request quotation|date=July 2009|that supports this paragraph}}{{Verify source|date=September 2009}} |
{{cite journal | quotes = no | author = Diethelm, PA and McKee, M | date = 2009 | title = Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? | journal = European Journal of Public Health | volume = 19 | issue = 1 | pages = 2–4 | url = http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/19/1/2 | doi = 10.1093/eurpub/ckn139}}{{Request quotation|date=July 2009|that supports this paragraph}}{{Verify source|date=September 2009}} |
||
</ref> |
|||
Indeed, Kalichman summarizes the "several incarnations of denialism" by stating: "All denialism is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is none"<ref> |
|||
{{cite web |
{{cite web |
||
| url = http://newhumanist.org.uk/2165/how-to-spot-an-aids-denialist |
| url = http://newhumanist.org.uk/2165/how-to-spot-an-aids-denialist |
||
Line 35: | Line 37: | ||
| location = London |
| location = London |
||
| accessdate = 2009-11-05 |
| accessdate = 2009-11-05 |
||
| quote = AIDS denialism is one of several incarnations of denialism. All denialism is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is none. Holocaust deniers claim that historians disagree about the evidence for Nazi mass gassings and systematic murder of Jews. Global warming denialists say that climatologists are torn by the evidence about climate change. 9/11 |
| quote = AIDS denialism is one of several incarnations of denialism. All denialism is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is none. Holocaust deniers claim that historians disagree about the evidence for Nazi mass gassings and systematic murder of Jews. Global warming denialists say that climatologists are torn by the evidence about climate change. 9/11 “Truth Seekers”, as clever a piece of branding as “pro-life”, say the collapse of the Twin Towers resulted from controlled demolition. Vaccine hysterics tell us that the science is split on whether vaccinations cause autism. And AIDS denialists say that scientists are in disagreement about whether HIV causes AIDS. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
</ref> - compare [[manufactured controversy]] and "[[Teach the Controversy]]". |
|||
==Illegitimate methodology and tactics== |
|||
Denialism is a form of [[propaganda]] covering a variety of activities. It can be as simple as like-minded individuals signing letters of dissent, or as elaborate as professional grey or [[black propaganda]] campaigns by [[advertising]] and [[marketing]] agencies.{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}} |
|||
Denialism can arise from personal ideologies, or desire for profit. Industry groups may seek to protect markets from damaging facts and information. Political groups may work to advance their agendas. Combinations of these may work in concert with interest groups on issues of mutual importance. Despite the disparity between these groups and the motives behind them, the tactics used by denialists are largely similar. Common features include:<ref>Mark Hoofnagle, [http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html "What is Denialism?"] March 18, 2007.</ref>{{Verify credibility|date=July 2009}} |
|||
*''[[Conspiracism]]'' - Suggesting scientists have an ulterior motive for their research, or that they are part of some hidden plan or agenda.<ref name="new_yorker">[http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/AIDS/032_Specter_Dissidents.pdf The Denialists] Michael Specter. [[The New Yorker]], March 12, 2007.</ref> |
|||
*''Selectivity'' - Relying upon discredited or flawed work supporting their idea while dismissing more credible work; presenting discredited or superseded papers to make a field look like it is based on weak research. Inflating favorable 'evidence' while discounting the contradictory, often while misrepresenting the significance of each. The selective use of evidence by denialists includes [[quote mining]] and [[cherry picking]].{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}} |
|||
*''False experts'' - Citing paid, partisan scientists or self-appointed 'experts,' whose credentials are often in an unrelated field.<ref name=Diethelm /><ref>[http://time.blogs.com/eye_on_science/2007/02/more_spin_from_.html Eye on Science - Science Blog - Michael D. Lemonick - TIME<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>{{Verify credibility|date=July 2009}}<ref>[[PZ Myers]] in [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]]: ''[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/dr_michael_egnor_challenges_ev.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link Dr Michael Egnor challenges evolution!].'' February 18, 2007</ref><ref>Orac in [[ScienceBlogs]]: ''[http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/03/train_wreck_thy_name_is_egnor.php Train wreck, thy name is Egnor!]'' March 12, 2007</ref>{{Verify credibility|date=July 2009}} |
|||
*''Impossible expectations'' - Seeking to prevent the implementation of sound policies or acceptance of a theory by citing the absence of 'complete' or 'absolute' knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}} |
|||
*''Misrepresentations and [[logical fallacy|logical fallacies]]'' - Denialists sometimes employ logical fallacies: [[Ignoratio elenchi#Red herring|red herring]]; [[straw man]]; [[appeal to consequences]]; [[false analogy]]. An example of the misuse of analogy in arguments is the [[watchmaker analogy]]. A common misrepresentation used in the [[intelligent design movement]] is the intentional use of the term [[Darwinism]] when what is being objected to is evolution. An example of an appeal to consequences is the common [[neo-creationism|neo-creationist]] claim that an acceptance of evolution (Darwinism) leads to social ills such as the atrocities committed by [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler's]] [[Nazism|Nazi]] regime,<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2172&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Social%20Sciences%20and%20Humanities Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life?] Richard Weikart. The Human Life Review. Discovery Institute, March 1 2004.</ref>{{Verify credibility|date=July 2009}} providing also an example of the [[reductio ad Hitlerum]] fallacy often used by denialists and an example of [[cherry-picking]], since Hitler also appealed to religion, [[germ theory]], and [[animal husbandry]]. Another common fallacy, often used in conjunction with impossible expectations, is the [[false dilemma]] fallacy, whereby unless there is an absolute proof of an assertion, the assertion is claimed false.{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}} |
|||
Additional propaganda techniques that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid include: [[Propaganda#Techniques|flag-waving]], [[glittering generalities]], [[thought-terminating cliché]]s, [[Propaganda#Techniques|intentional vagueness]], [[oversimplification]], [[rationalization]], [[slogans]], [[stereotyping]], [[testimonial]], [[unstated assumption]].{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}} |
|||
⚫ | In a newspaper article in 2003 [[Edwin Cameron]], a senior South African judge and an AIDS sufferer, described the tactics used by those who deny the Holocaust and those who deny that the AIDS pandemic is predominantly due to infection with the HIV virus. He stated that "For denialists, the facts are unacceptable. They engage in radical controversion, for ideological purposes, of facts that, by and large, are accepted by almost all experts and lay persons as having been established on the basis of overwhelming evidence".<ref name=Cameron-2004>[http://www.aegis.com/news/dmg/2003/MG030410.html The dead hand of denialism] [[Edwin Cameron]]. Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg), April 17, 2003.</ref> To do this they use "distortions, half-truths, misrepresentation of their opponents' positions and expedient shifts of premises and logic."<ref name=Cameron-2004/> |
||
==Ideological denialism== |
|||
⚫ | In a newspaper article in 2003 [[Edwin Cameron]], a senior South African judge and an AIDS sufferer, described the tactics used those who deny the Holocaust and those who deny that the AIDS pandemic is predominantly due to infection with the HIV virus. He |
||
Ideologies that conflict with commonly accepted scientific theories or facts can drive their holders to engage in personal forms of denial, either to favor their personal beliefs, or to avoid having to reconcile those beliefs with contradictory evidence.<ref>[http://www.aegis.com/news/dmg/2003/MG030410.html The dead hand of denialism] [[Edwin Cameron]]. Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg), April 17, 2003.</ref> |
|||
Common forms of denialism arising from ideologies are Holocaust denial, [[Holodomor denial]], [[AIDS denialism]], the [[vaccine controversy]], and the [[creation-evolution controversy]].<ref>Smith TC, Novella SP (2007) [http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256&ct=1 HIV Denial in the Internet Era]. [[Public Library of Science|PLoS Med]] 4(8): e256 {{doi|10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256}}</ref>{{Verify source|date=July 2009}} |
|||
Edwin Cameron notes that a common tactic is to use by denialists is to "make great play of the inescapable indeterminacy of figures and statistics",<ref name=Cameron-2004/> as scientific studies of many areas rely on probability analysis of sets of data, and in historical studies the precise numbers of victims and other facts my not be available in the primary sources. This is an area which British historian [[Richard J. Evans]] mentioned as part of his analysis of the [[David Irving|David Irving's]] work which he presented for the defence when Irving sued [[Deborah Lipstadt]] for liable: |
|||
<blockquote>Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly. They do not present, as genuine, documents which they know to be forged just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious, but implausible, and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents, because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments, if this is the case, or, indeed, abandon them altogether. They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources, which, in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability, or otherwise, simply because they want, for whatever reason, to maximize the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures, as impartially as possible, in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others. They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages in order to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not wilfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events, for which there is no historical evidence, in order to make their arguments more plausible.<ref name=Evans-Pgrph-6-20>[[Richard J. Evans]]. David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, [http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/trial/defense/evans/6 6. General Conclusion] Paragraphs 6.20,6.21</ref> |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
==Corporate denialism== |
==Corporate denialism== |
Revision as of 22:10, 5 November 2009
Denialism "is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event."[1]
Anthropologist Didier Fassin distinguishes between denial - defined as "the empirical observation that reality and truth are being denied" and denialism, which he defines as "an idealogical position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth".[2]
The term has been used with "Holocaust denialism", and "AIDS denialism".[3][4][5][6][7] Other scientific facts and theories underpinning vaccination,[8][9][10] climate change,[11][12][13] and evolution[14] have also been subject to attacks by people who deny the validity of the underlying science.
Prescriptive and polemic
If one party to a debate accuses the other of denialism they are framing the debate, because denialism is prescriptive: it carries implications that there is a truth that the other side denies, and polemic because the accuser usually goes on to explain how the other party is denying the asserted truth and as such the other party is in the wrong, which leads to an implied accusation that if the accused party persist with the denial despite the evidence their motives must be false.[2]
Scientific consensus
Individuals or groups who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists can engage in denialism when they use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.[15][16] Indeed, Kalichman summarizes the "several incarnations of denialism" by stating: "All denialism is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is none"[17] - compare manufactured controversy and "Teach the Controversy".
Illegitimate methodology and tactics
Denialism is a form of propaganda covering a variety of activities. It can be as simple as like-minded individuals signing letters of dissent, or as elaborate as professional grey or black propaganda campaigns by advertising and marketing agencies.[citation needed]
Denialism can arise from personal ideologies, or desire for profit. Industry groups may seek to protect markets from damaging facts and information. Political groups may work to advance their agendas. Combinations of these may work in concert with interest groups on issues of mutual importance. Despite the disparity between these groups and the motives behind them, the tactics used by denialists are largely similar. Common features include:[18][unreliable source?]
- Conspiracism - Suggesting scientists have an ulterior motive for their research, or that they are part of some hidden plan or agenda.[19]
- Selectivity - Relying upon discredited or flawed work supporting their idea while dismissing more credible work; presenting discredited or superseded papers to make a field look like it is based on weak research. Inflating favorable 'evidence' while discounting the contradictory, often while misrepresenting the significance of each. The selective use of evidence by denialists includes quote mining and cherry picking.[citation needed]
- False experts - Citing paid, partisan scientists or self-appointed 'experts,' whose credentials are often in an unrelated field.[16][20][unreliable source?][21][22][unreliable source?]
- Impossible expectations - Seeking to prevent the implementation of sound policies or acceptance of a theory by citing the absence of 'complete' or 'absolute' knowledge.[citation needed]
- Misrepresentations and logical fallacies - Denialists sometimes employ logical fallacies: red herring; straw man; appeal to consequences; false analogy. An example of the misuse of analogy in arguments is the watchmaker analogy. A common misrepresentation used in the intelligent design movement is the intentional use of the term Darwinism when what is being objected to is evolution. An example of an appeal to consequences is the common neo-creationist claim that an acceptance of evolution (Darwinism) leads to social ills such as the atrocities committed by Hitler's Nazi regime,[23][unreliable source?] providing also an example of the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy often used by denialists and an example of cherry-picking, since Hitler also appealed to religion, germ theory, and animal husbandry. Another common fallacy, often used in conjunction with impossible expectations, is the false dilemma fallacy, whereby unless there is an absolute proof of an assertion, the assertion is claimed false.[citation needed]
Additional propaganda techniques that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid include: flag-waving, glittering generalities, thought-terminating clichés, intentional vagueness, oversimplification, rationalization, slogans, stereotyping, testimonial, unstated assumption.[citation needed]
In a newspaper article in 2003 Edwin Cameron, a senior South African judge and an AIDS sufferer, described the tactics used by those who deny the Holocaust and those who deny that the AIDS pandemic is predominantly due to infection with the HIV virus. He stated that "For denialists, the facts are unacceptable. They engage in radical controversion, for ideological purposes, of facts that, by and large, are accepted by almost all experts and lay persons as having been established on the basis of overwhelming evidence".[24] To do this they use "distortions, half-truths, misrepresentation of their opponents' positions and expedient shifts of premises and logic."[24]
Ideological denialism
Ideologies that conflict with commonly accepted scientific theories or facts can drive their holders to engage in personal forms of denial, either to favor their personal beliefs, or to avoid having to reconcile those beliefs with contradictory evidence.[25]
Common forms of denialism arising from ideologies are Holocaust denial, Holodomor denial, AIDS denialism, the vaccine controversy, and the creation-evolution controversy.[26][verification needed]
Corporate denialism
International corporations such as ExxonMobil have been criticized for contributing to scientists and scientific experimentation questioning the scientific consensus on global climate change.[11] ExxonMobil has strenuously denied the accusations, stating that "The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions."[27] Newsweek[28] and Mother Jones[29] have published articles stating corporations are funding the "denial industry".
Political denialism
The Bush Administration's replacement of previous science advisers with industry experts or scientists tied to industry, and its refusal to submit the Kyoto Protocol for ratification due to uncertainties they asserted were present in the climate change issue, have been cited as examples of politically motivated denialism by the press.[28][30][31] The general class of genocide denial, of which holocaust denial is a subset, is another form of political denialism.[32]
See also
- Denial
- Agnotology
- Anti-intellectualism
- Artificial controversy
- Astroturfing
- Creation science
- Denial of the Holodomor
- Disinformation
- Epistemology
- False flag
- Fear, uncertainty and doubt
- Galileo Gambit
- Heresy
- Negativity effect
- Non-denial denial
- Obscurantism
- Philosophy of Science
- Politicization of science
- Politics of global warming
- Propaganda
- Historical revisionism
- Tax protester
- True believer syndrome
References
- ^ Paul O'Shea, A Cross Too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917-1943, Rosenberg Publishing, 2008. ISBN 1877058718. p.20.
- ^ a b Didier Fassin, When bodies remember: experiences and politics of AIDS in South Africa, Volume 15 of California series in public, University of California Press, 2007, ISBN 9780520250277. p. 115
- ^ Kim, Richard (2007-03-02). "Harper's Publishes AIDS Denialist". The Nation.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|quotes=
ignored (help) - ^ Cotton, John L. and Randall J. Scalise. AIDS Denial is Pseudoscience. Department of Physics Southern Methodist University.
- ^ Sitze, Adam (2004). "Denialism" (PDF). South Atlantic Quarterly. 103 (4): 769–811. doi:10.1215/00382876-103-4-769.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|quotes=
ignored (help) - ^ Watson, James (2006). "Scientists, activists sue South Africa's AIDS 'denialists'" (PDF). Nature Medicine. 12 (1): 6. doi:10.1038/nm0106-6a.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|quotes=
ignored (help) - ^ "Editorial: Denying science" (PDF). Nature Medicine. 12 (4): 369. 2006. doi:10.1038/nm0406-369.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|quotes=
ignored (help) - ^ The Autism/Vaccines Fraud. By Mark Hoofnagle. scienceblogs.com/denialism/. Published February 10, 2009.
- ^ Vaccine Denial = Scientific Illiteracy. By Jacob Dickerman. The Huffington Post. Published March 30, 2009.
- ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1038/459168a, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
|doi=10.1038/459168a
instead. - ^ a b The denial industry George Monbiot. Guardian Unlimited, September 19, 2006.
- ^ Ellen Goodman (9 February 2007). "No change in political climate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Deniers of global warming harm us Joel Connelly. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 10, 2007.
- ^ "The dangers of creationism in education". Council of Europe. Retrieved 2007-08-03.
- ^ See, for example, Stoff, Rick (2007). "'Denialism' and muddying the waters". St. Louis Journalism Review. 37 (296): 21–33, 2p.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter|quotes=
ignored (help)[need quotation to verify][verification needed] - ^ a b
Diethelm, PA and McKee, M (2009). "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?". European Journal of Public Health. 19 (1): 2–4. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|quotes=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)[need quotation to verify][verification needed] - ^
Kalichman, Seth (2009). "How to spot an AIDS denialist". New Humanist. London: The Rationalist Association. Retrieved 2009-11-05.
AIDS denialism is one of several incarnations of denialism. All denialism is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is none. Holocaust deniers claim that historians disagree about the evidence for Nazi mass gassings and systematic murder of Jews. Global warming denialists say that climatologists are torn by the evidence about climate change. 9/11 "Truth Seekers", as clever a piece of branding as "pro-life", say the collapse of the Twin Towers resulted from controlled demolition. Vaccine hysterics tell us that the science is split on whether vaccinations cause autism. And AIDS denialists say that scientists are in disagreement about whether HIV causes AIDS.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ Mark Hoofnagle, "What is Denialism?" March 18, 2007.
- ^ The Denialists Michael Specter. The New Yorker, March 12, 2007.
- ^ Eye on Science - Science Blog - Michael D. Lemonick - TIME
- ^ PZ Myers in Pharyngula: Dr Michael Egnor challenges evolution!. February 18, 2007
- ^ Orac in ScienceBlogs: Train wreck, thy name is Egnor! March 12, 2007
- ^ Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life? Richard Weikart. The Human Life Review. Discovery Institute, March 1 2004.
- ^ a b The dead hand of denialism Edwin Cameron. Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg), April 17, 2003.
- ^ The dead hand of denialism Edwin Cameron. Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg), April 17, 2003.
- ^ Smith TC, Novella SP (2007) HIV Denial in the Internet Era. PLoS Med 4(8): e256 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256
- ^ CBC: Gore takes aim at corporately funded climate research. August 7, 2007
- ^ a b The Truth About Denial Sharon Begley. Newsweek August 13, 2007.
- ^ Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank. May/June 2005 (Internet Archive)
- ^ Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers Newsweek August 13, 2007.
- ^ Dickinson, Tim (2007-06-20). "The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming". Current Biology. Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2007-07-14.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ See, e.g., Elizabeth Strakosch (2005) "The Political Methodology of Genocide Denial" [1]