Rhetorical Patterns of History and Science Denial

Journal Genocide Research, 2003

This is an update to the detailed formal classification of many types of denials of the tragedy and evil of genocides. The original draft of this classification was published in the Journal of Genocide Research in 2003.

Casuistry and rhetoric both are terms long maligned for their unpredictability and ethical bendability.' The debate about rhetorical ethics is ancient and ongoing-as is the debate surrounding the appropriate use and application of casuistry.

Journal For the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 2010

The question at hand is, “Why is there a social counter-movement that rejects climate change?” This article begins by first naming this counter-movement “climate denial” and working through the various apparent options by specifically looking at the scholarship on Holocaust denial for insight. Through this insight, we can understand the counter-movement as a reactionary force working to sow confusion for ideological reasons that promote a specific privilege. At the same time, privilege is also protected by the presentation of climate change science as a binary position of “acknowledgement or rejection” that itself promotes privilege and dysfunction across the intersection of science and society. In the end, at least one answer to the question “why denial?” appears to be “because it is serious and threatening” and this, at least partially, explains the existence of this counter-movement.

Trends in Microbiology, 2012

Evolution, climate change, and vaccination: in these cases and more, scientists, policymakers, and educators are confronted by organized campaigns to spread doubt, denial, and rejection of the scientific community's consensus on central scientific principles. To overcome these threats, scientists not only need to spread scientific knowledge, but must also address the social drivers of science denial.

1 The Alberta-based organization Friends of Science provides several "proofs" that climate change is not happening: The earth is cooling; the Sun causes climate change; violent weather isn't getting worse; climate computer models are proven wrong (Friends of Science, 2013). 2 James Lovelock considers that it is too late and too risky to try to reach any international consensus on climate change. He recommends that Britain acts alone, by securing sources of energy, preparing for the protection and eventual abandonment of cities close to sea level such as London and Liverpool, and "plan for the synthesis of food from nothing more than air, water and a few minerals" (2006, p. 13). 3 The great global warming swindle by Martin Durkin (2007). 4 Two of them, Carl Wunsch and Eigil Friis-Christensen, are not deniers. See Ofcom (2008) for their implication.

Studies in history and philosophy of science, 2017

Science denialism poses a serious threat to human health and the long-term sustainability of human civilization. Although it has recently been rather extensively discussed, this discussion has rarely been connected to the extensive literature on pseudoscience and the science-pseudoscience demarcation. This contribution argues that science denialism should be seen as one of the two major forms of pseudoscience, alongside of pseudotheory promotion. A detailed comparison is made between three prominent forms of science denialism, namely relativity theory denialism, evolution denialism, and climate science denialism. Several characteristics are identified that distinguish science denialism from other forms of pseudoscience, in particular its persistent fabrication of fake controversies, the extraordinary male dominance among its activists, and its strong connection with various forms of right-wing politics. It is argued that the scientific response to science denialism has to be conceiv...

European Journal for Philosophy of Science

It has been much debated whether epistemic relativism in academia, for instance in the form of social constructivism, the strong programme, deconstructionism, and postmodernism, has paved the way for the recent upsurge in science denial, in particular climate science denial. In order to provide an empirical basis for this discussion, an extensive search of the social science literature was performed. It showed that in the 1990s, climate science was a popular target among academic epistemic relativists. In particular, many STS scholars used it as an allegedly clear example of claims by natural scientists that should be treated as mere social constructions, rather than as reports on the actual state of the natural world. A few connections between social constructivists and corporate science denialism were also uncovered, but the extent of such connections could not be determined. With few exceptions, the stream of criticism of climate science from academic relativists has dwindled sin...