Talk:Denialism

	This Denialism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

See the history of vandalism to this article

Other Moon Landings

The Soviet Luna program conducted several unmanned landings on the Moon. The Soviet Zond program conducted several cislunar missions in preparation for manned landings. But why not be less specific when the opportunity presents? "Moon landin's" it is. Yeah ha!

Is this denialism, gaslighting, or something else?

A phenomenon known as "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender", or DARVO for short. If gaslighting had its own article, I'd have posted this there instead, but since gaslighting is currently filed under delusion, it seemed that denialism fit better. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Gaslighting should be filed under brainwashing actually. Though it's not mind control, it's a way of warping the victim's mind, especially when the victim doesn't even begin to trust self judgement. While it's also a form of denialism, I think there is much more deliberate manipulation behind gaslighting compared to denialism, which contains both those who lie to influence (like Exxon-paid global warming deniers) and those who are honest in their denial, which are people who are swayed by those deniers. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a question

What's the name of those that make the same base mistake as denialist (they take science as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data), but instead of nitpicking on any faults they believe they have found, take current scientific knowledge as a gospel that shan't be contested even if sciences marches on? (Basically, they take their poor understanding of science as a religion, instead of from the cumulation of human knoledge obtained by the scientific method that it is.)

They call us "engineers". 02:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation to Diethelm and Mckee inaccurate

COI Statement - I am asking for citation to me here, so just to be clear, I'm an interested party.

But... Diethelm and McKee clearly cite our about page for the 5 tactics. They adapt them word for word. https://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about Also archived here forever. https://denialism.com/about/

It's OK to cite Diethelm and McKee for putting it in the literature, but they cite us as the source of the definitions, so for accuracy etc etc. Similarly Skeptical Science/John Cook cites us correctly for their codification of FLICC technique https://skepticalscience.com/Week-1-Denial101x.html

I don't want to change it myself as the interested party, but, hopefully this is valid plea. I would replace this with Mark and Chris Hoofnagle have identified five characteristics of denialists:

with citations to: https://denialism.com/about/ and https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/19/1/2/463780

And it might be worth discussing John Cook's use of these as a the FLICC teaching tool in denialism 101x. https://skepticalscience.com/Week-1-Denial101x.html As he has some of the best evidence that used as a critical thinking guide they inoculate against spread of denialism https://skepticalscience.com/incoculation-theory-cook17.html ^{— Unsigned, by: MarkH / talk / contribs}

Dead link -- source seven

Heyo, noticed that source seven is labelled as a dead link, meaning to bring the reader here. I found a replacement in the form of an archive here. Changing now, revert if necessary :) Moria (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)