A comparative guide to science denial

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Denialist movements as public relations projects)
(Denial of well-established evidence)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
==Denial of well-established evidence==
 
==Denial of well-established evidence==
The following are quotes from denialists about the purported lack of scientific evidence.
+
The following are quotes from [[denialism|denialists]] about the purported lack of scientific evidence.
 
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
 
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
 
<TR><TD width=33% valign=top>
 
<TR><TD width=33% valign=top>

Revision as of 20:16, 15 August 2010

When you watch science denial in action, you will see the same sort of arguments being used over and over, often in much the same order. Here is a handy cut out and keep guide, with examples from creationists, climate change deniers and the tobacco industry.

This is a severely unfinished work in progress. Please contribute, with references.

Contents

Denial of well-established evidence

The following are quotes from denialists about the purported lack of scientific evidence.

Tobacco Industry Spokesman

Clarence C. Little: It is my purpose to present certain of the reasons why all such data (which are at time based on rather superficial and indirect observations) fail to convince other scientists and medical men that a cause-and-effect relationship between tobacco use and bronchogenic carcinoma has been established.

This does not mean that certain existing studies have not produced suggestive findings. It merely proposes that the problems raised by such studies are not yet solved and that much more research in depth is needed before definitive answers will be available.[1]

ID/Creationist Movement

Michael Behe: On a small scale, Darwin's theory has triumphed; it is now as controversial as an athlete's assertion that he or she could jump over a four-foot ditch. But, it is at the level of macroevolution—of large jumps—that the theory evokes skepticism. Many people have followed Darwin in proposing that huge changes can be broken down into plausible, small steps over great periods of time. Persuasive evidence to support that position, however, has not been forthcoming.[2]

Global Warming Denialists

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.[3]

Denialist movements as public relations projects

The following are quotes analyzing each group from the perspective of public relations, quoting the denialists themselves.

Tobacco industry

T.V. Hartnett, president of Brown & Williamson, summarized the problem [for the tobacco industry] in an internal memorandum following the initial meeting. "Excessive care," he warned, "must be used at this time in the methods we use to counteract these claims… The problem is to challenge these findings ethically and effectively without rancor–to win friends rather than create enemies." Harnett went on to outline two approaches that would dominate the industry's strategy:

Cancer research, while certainly getting our every support, can be only half the answer…. The other side of the coin is public relations… [which] is basically a selling tool and the most astute selling may well be needed to get the industry out of this hole. It isn't exaggeration that no public relations expert has ever been handed so real and yet so delicate a multi-million dollar problem…. Finally, one of the roughest hurdles which must be anticipated is how to handle significantly negative research results, if, as, and when they develop.[4][5]

ID movement

The intelligent design movements discussed public relations in the Wedge Document, such as in the list below:

Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making

  • Book Publicity
  • Opinion-Maker Conferences
  • Apologetics Seminars
  • Teacher Training Program
  • Op-ed Fellow
  • PBS (or other TV) Co-production
  • Publicity Materials / Publications

Global Warming Denialists (in this case, the American Petroleum Institute)

[Steven] Milloy was a founding member of a team assembled by the American Petroleum Institute (API) to create the 1998 "Global Climate Science Communication Action Plan. " The API [American Petroleum Institute] made no bones about its intent in creating its plan for the public. The document plainly states that its purpose is to convince the public, through the media, that climate science is awash in uncertainty. Notwithstanding that the industry's own scientists were saying as early as 1995 that the science of climate change was undeniable …, the API set out an entire strategy bent on making doubt, in the words of the memo below, "conventional wisdom." The API document begins with a missions statement (the parenthetical additions appear in the original):

Victory Will Be Achieved When

  • Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the conventional wisdom
  • Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
  • Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"
  • Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy.
  • Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality.[6]

Petitions of supporters, perhaps scientists

The following are statements from the petitions of denialist movements. Petitions are a common way of making a denialist movement more popular, and function as a argumentum ad populum to their validity.

Tobacco Industry Petition

ID/Creationist Petition

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.[7]

Global Warming Denialists

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. [8]

On manufactured controversies

The following are observer statements about the "controversies" that each group of denialists claim exists, when, in fact, there is none in the scientific communities.

About the Tobacco Industry

The industry’s strategy does not require winning the debates it manufactures. It is enough to foster and perpetuate the illusion of controversy in order to muddy the waters around scientific findings that threaten the industry.[9]

ID/Creationist Movement

Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. [10]

Global Warming Denialists

Languaging expert Frank Luntz admitted as much in his now infamous talking points memo on the environment, leaked to the public in 2002, where he confessed that the window for claiming controversy about global warming was closing, but he nonetheless urged conservative congressional and executive leaders “to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”[11]

Mere statistical data

Denialists often minimize the relevance of statistical data, as the following quotes indicate.

Tobacco Industry Spokesman

Clarence C. Little: It is the statistical data that comprise the great bulk of the material on which rest the dogmatic claims of "proof" of a cause-and-effect relation between smoking and lung cancer.

Supporters of the tobacco-guilt hypothesis say: “Look at the great number of epidemiologic studies, all showing a statistical association between cigarette smoking and the development of lung cancer in some individuals. Is not this proof of causation?”

Quantity in this statistical area is not proof or corroboration. Indeed, one would expect that all statistical studics similarly set up would show a stat istical association if one of them did — but such an association is not proof of causation by any means.

Most statisticians, recognizing the secondary and indirect nature of epidemiologic evidence based on death certificates, agree that such evidence alone cannot properly be considered final or conclusive in establishing causation. It may be, and in this case is, suggestive and challenging. It demands and is receiving proper consideration by those who require additional and more direct evidence pro or con the theory of tobacco guilt.[1]

ID/Creationist Movement

Shannon’s information theory [which can be applied to evolution] is well suited to an understanding of the statistical aspect of information. This theory makes it possible to give a quantitative description of those characteristics of languages that are based intrinsically on frequencies. However, whether a chain of symbols has a meaning is not taken into consideration. [12]

Global Warming Denialists

Conspiracy (particularly in peer review)

Denialists will claim there is a conspiracy in the science they deny.

Anti-anti-smoking website

The ongoing anti-smoking campaign is not about public health, drug abuse, or teen smoking. What it is all about is money, control, and jurisdiction.[13]

ID/Creationist Movement

Intelligent design was being suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion. (Ben Stein, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed)[14]

Global Warming Denialists

I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics. (Andrew Bolt in his Climategate "expose")[15]

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 Little, Clarence C. "Some Phases of the Problem of Smoking and Lung Cancer" New England Journal of Medicine 1964 (264), 1241-1245.
  2. Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box 10th anniversary ed. Simon and Shuster: New York, 2006, p. 15.
  3. As quoted in Lane, Allen (2006-08-19). "The denial industry". The Guardian.
  4. Brandt, Allan M. The Cigarette Century, the Rise, Fall and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America. Paperback ed.; Basic: New York, 2009; p 165.
  5. Brandt references Timothy V. Hartnett, "Memorandum from T.V. Harnett," December 15, 1953, Bates No. 1005039779/9783 [1] .
  6. Hoggan, James, and Richard Littlemore. Climate Cover-up, the Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Greystone:Vancouver, 2009; pp 42-43.
  7. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
  8. http://www.petitionproject.org/
  9. Saloojee, Yussuf and Elif Dagli. "Tobacco industry tactics for resisting public policy on health" Bull. World Health Organ. 78(7): Genebra, July 2000.
  10. http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Excerpts.html
  11. Ceccarelli, Leah "Manufactroversy, The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed" Science Progress Spring/Summer 2008: 82-84.
  12. http://creation.com/information-science-and-biology
  13. http://www.smokingaloud.com/
  14. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. As quoted on Expelled Exposed. Accessed 15 August 2010.
  15. Bolt, Andrew. "Climategate: Warmist conspiracy exposed?" heraldsun.co.au 20 Nov 2009. Accessed 15 Aug 2010.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support