Jonathan Logan
Science & Environment Editor
The astronomers Galileo and Copernicus found themselves at odds with the Catholic Church centuries ago as they postulated “heretical” ideas about the solar system. Yet, Christianity still runs strong through the hearts of over two billion people. To the Church, science and objective truth were seen as degrading to the profound spiritual connection it had worked to cultivate with God. Even today, the rigidity of the scientific method and the reality of the lived experience clash over topics as simple as the shape of our planet.
This gap must be bridged. Reason must replace cold logic and staunch denialism. Scientists must come down from their ivory towers and denialists from their world of information saturation to engage one another — a walk in the other person’s shoes. And no, Twitter is not a forum for genuine engagement.
Denialism is often associated with the grieving process, but in a world of talking heads, science denialism is generally rooted in the idea of questioning everything — yes, scientists’ curiosity has been inverted and turned on them. Where questioning everything becomes denialism is the point at which the mentality overrides the response people have to being presented with a reasonable argument and conclusion.
Curiosity and the process of peer-review are the forces that create and push back against science denialism. The world of scientific research and publishing remains out of reach to all but the Ph.D. It would do scientists good to recognize that the same mistrust of establishment politicians fuels the mistrust of science. People feel disconnected from science the same way they feel disconnected from the elected officials they chose to represent them. The average peer-reviewed research paper published in well-respected journals is often too complex for even an undergraduate student to understand without spending hours researching every word in the abstract.
Science communication and the implementation of scientific policy are key to solving this problem. The normal academic response to denialists is to engage the denier in debate. However, these debates often devolve into arguments that do little more than highlight differences in beliefs, lifestyle and selective arguments that nitpick. Instead of pointing out the ignorance of denialists, scientists and those in positions of influence should identify the process denialists take to reach their bizarre conclusions. Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee argued in a paper published in the European Journal of Public Health that scientists ought to sidestep the denialist’s rejection of evidence and involve the general public in “exposing the tactics the denialists employ.” Consensus, not cold logic and scientific “bible beating,” can overcome denialism while the majority of people are reasonable enough to accept strong evidence.
Attention drives much of human behavior, especially in a democracy where every voice counts. Flat-earthers (flearthers) are a prime example. Much of their denialism is fueled by eccentric thoughts. Flearthers pose no real threat to our existence or survival. Paying no attention may well be the best course of action in cases like this.
On the other hand, climate change poses a very real and immediate threat to our species. The process by which climate denialists most often arrive at their conclusion is rooted in greed (oil tycoons and beneficiaries). They are also masters of selective argumentation — nitpicking the most minute detail, taking it out of context and twisting it to accommodate their worldview. There is no quick fix to climate change or the denial thereof. A Nature article published in 2019 suggested that steady perseverance in exposing the flawed arguments will ultimately give way to the progress we are now seeing in industries such as renewable energy.
In 1999, the former president of South Africa, Thambo Mbeki, drew international attention when he continually argued that HIV did not cause AIDS despite the overwhelming amounts of scientific evidence suggesting otherwise. Mbeki prevented many people from accessing drugs to treat the condition. Instead, the government recommended herbal treatments. The denialism in this case has been estimated to have caused over 300,000 deaths.
These situations and understanding the diverse worldviews that lead to science denialism are integral in informing and confronting the issues at hand. A walk in the other person’s shoes should always be the first step in understanding where a denialist comes from. Then, exposing the tactics they employ instead of scientific bible beating should lend itself consensus and reason. From harmless flearthers to presidents to the keyboard warrior on Twitter, we all have a profound responsibility to be curious, ask questions and reason through dialogue.
