Down The Rabbit Hole … part 3 - It’s not a river in Egypt…
Denialism is the psychological term for the behaviour of denying reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions. The discomfort you feel when faced by evidence for something that you do not want to be true is called cognitive dissonance. Now, if you are a reasonably mature and rational person, you deal with this by examining the available evidence – and your own assumptions – in order to arrive at an unbiased conclusion.
Not everyone is reasonably mature and rational, however. Some people prefer to try and find ways to reinterpret reality in order to make it fit comfortably with their existing assumptions and opinions. When it comes to science denialism, this takes the form of alternative ideas that have no firm basis in reality. Very often these ideas demonstrate that the person has a very poor understanding of the basic details of the matter at hand.
For example, those opposed to the theory of evolution (usually due to conflict with their religious beliefs) very often say “It’s only a theory”, betraying ignorance of the meaning of the word *theory in a scientific context. This is often followed by “If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” … frequently accompanying this with a picture of a chimpanzee, of course… or “Have you ever seen a cow give birth to a frog?”
A common idea is that science is a lot more unsettled than it actually is in reality. The fact that science does not claim absolute truth, and that scientific knowledge can change, is taken as evidence that long-established facts based upon an overwhelming weight of evidence can be called into question – or totally disregarded – in favour of alternative ideas with little or no realistic merit. Anecdotes are believed to be of equal value to empirical data. One dissenting voice in the scientific community – out of millions – is taken as proof that the established facts are built on shaky ground and can be overthrown at any moment.
Those who accept the established facts are accused of subscribing to “scientism”, defined (in this context) as an over-reliance on science, as opposed to other reliable sources of real-world information, such as … the Bible...
Every now and then someone online will say “Science is nothing but lies!” …. on the internet … using a computer…
This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding: that science is the consensus of opinion of an elite group of academics. In reality, consensus is arrived at via empirical means, based upon dispassionate evidence. Furthermore, science is not a monolithic, finite collection of facts, but a system of gaining knowledge which is, within its own regulations, open to revolutionary changes (quantum physics being an excellent example).
Sometimes the individual will present an argument based on logic - believing this to be an iron-clad fortification of his viewpoint – but the logic will be flawed. There are many logical fallacies that people use when debating, such as the correlation fallacy (assuming that correlation equals causation, such as “I took the vaccine then had a heart attack, therefore vaccines cause heart attacks.”), or the straw man (misrepresenting the argument, such as “Cows cannot give birth to frogs, therefore evolution is false.”), among others.
The appeal to authority fallacy (stating that something is true because of the people who support it, rather than the facts of the position itself) is often used by science deniers when they quote a carefully chosen ‘expert’ to back up an unscientific viewpoint. Their ‘expert’ will be someone who may be qualified, but nevertheless wrong if their conclusions are not based on correctly verified empirical data; for example, a doctor who opposes a certain vaccine citing a study which was not conducted properly.
Denialists will also accuse anyone who questions them of committing this same fallacy: deferring to the *actual experts in the relevant field is seen as a form of naivety. They will insist that people should only trust what they can observe themselves, placing an impossible burden on the questioner. By this logic, a person who has never been to Australia has no evidence that there is such a country. Surely nobody can be gullible enough to believe that something as absurd as a kangaroo actually exists?
When confronted with unyielding empirical evidence that supports the consensus, the next tactic for the denialist is to target not the message, but the messenger. Basically, anyone who does not agree with their viewpoint is lying. Palaeontologists are “evolutionists” who are engaging in a vast, convoluted deception because they have an “atheist worldview”. Anyone who accepts the substantial evidence that climate change is caused by human beings is a “communist” seeking to tear down hard-working multi-billion dollar oil companies. You say the Earth is not flat? Well, you’re a Satanist, obviously…
Central to this approach is the notion that the scientific community is a shady, secretive cabal of sinister con men motivated by political and monetary gain. Astrophysicists who talk about the Big Bang are merely toeing the party line so that they can continue to receive funding from government. Medical professionals are “pushing” vaccines because they are being paid by the Illuminati, who want to put microchips in your brain in order to enslave you. Science itself is nothing more than an extremely elaborate tissue of lies held grimly together by a determined network of masterful fraudsters, over the course of years, with not one member of the conspiracy ever blowing the whistle. Anyone who presents evidence to the contrary is a loyal “shill”.
This picture stands in amusingly stark contrast to reality, in which credibility for scientific theories is built upon a collaborative process of peer review. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be testable/falsifiable; basically, a new idea will be examined by other professionals in the same field who are assessing the value of the idea by *rigorously trying to prove it wrong. A hypothesis that survives this gains legitimacy.
As with other conspiracy theories, the science denialist mindset uses an inversion of the appropriate element of scepticism. The denialist sees himself as a sharp-witted figure who has seen through the web of deception and calls upon others to “Wake up!” and smell the coffee. He sees the majority as ignorant, docile sheep (or sheep people = “sheeple”) who are content in their lot, unconcerned that the powers that be may be lying to them in order to manipulate and exploit them. In his own mind, he is a heroic champion of truth and justice; similar to the delusions of grandeur seen in certain personality disorders and mental illnesses.
This type of denialism benefits from a healthy scepticism of authority – government corruption, in varying degrees, is universal – but then extends it to include intellectual authorities. The denialist will tell you not to listen to the “so-called” experts, but to “do your own research”. This sounds like a rational and reasonable piece of advice until you discover that “research”, in this person’s mind, means carefully cherry-picking only the sources of information that conform to their preconceptions (confirmation bias); namely, articles by other conspiracy theorists.
Despite giving the impression of being more open-minded than the common herd, the denialist is extremely restrictive in choosing which sources of information to use to support his position, judging them based not upon their intrinsic value, but upon whether or not they are telling him what he wants to hear.
Real conspiracies do exist, of course - not just in governments but also in large businesses – and this is taken by the denialist as evidence that deception perpetrated by those in positions of trust is widespread. They blur the distinctions between different types of authority, however: medical professionals are assumed to be in secretive collaboration with the ruling party (or some shadowy organisation that wields the true power behind the scenes). The lack of any evidence for the existence of such associations is interpreted as evidence of censorship; an example of circular reasoning designed to protect the theory from any criticism.
Challenges to medical authority are rarely consistent, however. Those who label doctors as being sinister agents of “Big Pharma” for advising vaccination will – in a heartbeat – run straight to those same doctors for help when they or their children fall sick.
Ironically, an actual conspiracy, regardless of how much evidence is available to demonstrate its existence, is disregarded if it contradicts the denialist’s imagined scenario.
Comments
Post a Comment