Anyone who follows the comment sections of this blog will get the impression that those who presistently question or object to rationalists’ views and interpretations see themselves as much as skeptics as the other side. Indeed, skepticism and denialism are often and easily confused: both can involve questioning established opinions, for instance. Yet, there are important differences related to the motivations, methods, and outcomes. Let me try to explain this in more detail.
Skepticism
Skepticism is an essential principle of science. It is characterised by a questioning attitude and by critical thinking.
- Skepticism is motivated by the desire to find the most truthful answer to the question at hand and is driven by curiosity as well as a commitment to evidence and reason.
- A skeptic questions claims by asking for more evidence, examines the methodology, and considers alternative explanations. He/she is open to changing their mind when presented with convincing evidence.
- The aim of skepticism is to generate progress by improving our knowledge and understanding of the world. Whenever the evidence is insufficient, skeptics suspend their judgement until it is sound. Whenever the evidence shows them to be mistaken, they correct their stance.
Denialism
Denialism is an ideological and usually unchangable position that rejects a consensus even in the presence of overwhelming evidence. It is by no means a search for the truth but a rejection of reality.
- Denialists are driven by ideological, political, financial or psychological motives. He or she is not seeking truth but rather is defending a dogma belief, stance or worldview that he or she not willing to change however convincing the evidence. Confronten with overwhelming evidence he or she resorts to willful ignorance or other techniques.
- Denialists tend to employ rhetorical tactics like cherry-picking, conspiracies, lies etc. to create the appearance of debate and openness where none exists.
- Denialism hinders progress by rejecting even the most solid evidence. It therefore leads to misinformation, wrong decisions by those you are its victims and often serious harm.
Crucial differences between skepticism and denialism
15 Responses to Skepticism versus denialism
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
In this context, one issue that I think about quite often is that collecting evidence, especially in science-related questions, often is a slow & gradual process.
Furthermore, individual pieces of evidence usually are of different quality and can even point to different conclusions.
For me, this can make it difficult to decide at which point in time, forming a judgement on such an issue (or changing a previously held opinion) is advisable or even necessary to avoid becoming a denialist.
I wonder if you encounter this isssue as well and if you follow a general strategy to deal with it.
good point!
I have frequently blogged about it [in my sphere of evidence]:
rely on consensus of trusted experts, systematic reviews of independent scientists, etc.
Outside my own field, much the same applies, I guess.
I find it sometimes difficult even within my own field of research.
E.g. recently, we obtained data in our lab that are partly not in good agreement with results that we published 20 years or so ago. Now we have to decide if the new data are already sufficient to warrant writing a publication with a somewhat changed perspective on this topic, or if further experiments have to be conducted that confirm the new results before we can think about publication. Since many aspects about cell lines and lab equipment etc. have changed, this is not an easy decision.
if the methodology has changed, this might be the explanation for the discrepancy.
if not, further experiments need doing, provided the findings are important enough – in my opinion.
The way you frame “forming a judgement” seems to be a false dichotomy. Science-based inquiry results in knowledge that is on a spectrum of probabilities. Homeopathy is at the far end of the spectrum where things are so improbable that one is virtually certain there is no truth there; it would take a complete revision of physical laws to render it plausible at some level. At the other end of the scale we have a claim like the earth orbits the sun. New evidence may cause us to consider something is more or less probable than we did before, and that may change things like recommendations for public health policies or where to spend our research dollars, but at no point does it mark a shift between skepticism and denialism.
In my opinion, skepticism is defined as inquiry based on logic and evidence, period. Denialism and “just asking questions” fails that test. All the other differences listed above are secondary attributes that derive from that core principle.
“At the other end of the scale we have a claim like the earth orbits the sun.”
Not attempting to be unkind to you, George, but they most assuredly orbit each other. This fact enables us to deduce which stars likely have exoplanets (that are invisible to our telescopes) — using techniques such as the wobble method (colloquial).
However, see:
The Relativity of Wrong
Isaac Asimov
https://skepticalinquirer.org/1989/10/the-relativity-of-wrong/
So the earth does not orbit the sun? Was my claim wrong or just incomplete?
Your claim was not wrong per se, but it would mislead (due to it being incomplete) a listener/reader who doesn’t already know the correct answer.
Did you not follow my hyperlink?
Anchor text: wobble method
URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy
which has this animated GIF clearly showing each object to be orbiting the other:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy#/media/File%3AOrbit3.gif
If accuracy isn’t important to you then say whatever the heck you like. However, if there comes a time when you want to be taken seriously, then being reasonably accurate is important because:
“If you don’t understand the basics of a subject, it’s easy to form conclusions that seem logical, but these same conclusions seem silly to those who have a deeper understanding of a subject.”
— Peter Lipson, MD
Mr. George: The earth is round.
Mr. Attkins: No it isn’t, it’s an oblate spheroid.
Mr. George: You’re really not comfortable around people, are you?
Hence my link to The Relativity of Wrong Isaac Asimov.
I simply addressed your statement:
I was being polite to you — using the principle of charity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Your initial comment, on an article entitled Skepticism versus denialism, sounds silly. It gives the impression that you’re a denialist, not a skeptic.
As I wrote previously:
If accuracy isn’t important to you then say whatever the heck you like.
Good day to you, Sir.
A more nuanced discussion, such as Ernst offers, goes a long ways to clarify why it is wrong for many self-proclaimed “skeptics” to identify as such. They would tell you that they easily meet your definition–the truth requires further discussion of what constitutes evidence for one.
With your permission I will save the body of this post and forward it to every New York Times reporter who claims to be a science reporter. Most of them throw in the word skeptic to apply to anyone who has a contrarian view; ie, RFK, Jr.
permission granted
The denialism table describes pseudo-skeptics very well. Ernst has projected himself!
not a bad joke!
thanks