Talk:Denialism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon denialism.svg

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.

Copperbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>
See the history of vandalism to this article

Other Moon Landings[edit]

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!

Federal Reserve audits denialism?[edit]

Considering all the Ron Paul obsessives who keep insisting that the Federal Reserve System has never gotten audited and that we need special legislation to force the Fed to submit to an audit, I have to wonder if these people don't know how to use search engines. If public Fed audits don't exist, what do they call this?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2011.pdf

BTW, p. 5 of this audit shows that the Fed in 2011 earned $83,877,000,000 in net interest income, and it reimbursed the U.S. Treasury $75,424,000,000. Despite the ignorant propaganda that the Fed operates as some kind of scam to exploit American taxpayers, it gets to keep only about 10 percent of its net interest income while putting the rest of its earnings into the common pool with our tax money.

Advancedatheist (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There's already quite a lot of coverage of Fed conspiracy theories on the Federal Reserve page, if that's what you're looking for. EVDebs (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a case of stopped clockism. The audits by the comptroller and GAO are not as comprehensive as the audit undertaken as a result of the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, which revealed some very dirty dealing. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

AHA denialists?[edit]

This article categorizes the "link between cholesterol...and heart disease." as denialism. But the AHA itself in the draft version of their new guidelines, categorizes dietary cholesterol and a "not a nutrient of concern": http://blog.heart.org/qa-federal-nutrition-panels-advice-dietary-cholesterol/

Caquilino (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. As your link points out, the AHA statement refers to dietary consumption of cholesterol and not serum cholesterol, the kind of cholesterol that has actual links to bad health. It seems like denialism, but it's just the evolution of understanding in how the levels of cholesterol work. MarmotHead (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this denialism, gaslighting, or something else?[edit]

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, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a question[edit]

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[edit]

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