Recall the theory “first science, then a policy” from the Module Technocracy or Democracy and the contrasting practice of policy making as a struggle from the Policy module. It is not surprising then that stakeholders may feel tempted to use science as one of their “weapons” in the policy struggle. They can prevent, deny, undermine, counter, twist, and ridicule science to frustrate and bend the policy process to get their way. If that happens, we talk about the politics of science.

If science can be misused, there must be an objective measure for “good science.” Washington & Cook (2011) state that in good scientific practice, scientists speak with a conditional voice, accept uncertainties, reach for a preponderance of evidence, and provide room for adversary evidence. Scientists hence find themselves in a vulnerable position for attacks. (Watch how a talk show can end dramatically when a journalist tries to mediate a discussion between a soft-spoken scientist and a loud opponent).

There is a thin line between skepticism and denial. The original Greek meaning of skepsis is “inquiry.” Genuine skepticism means considering the full body of evidence before coming to a conclusion. Good science calls for skepticism. Denial, on the other hand, is the willful ignorance of scientific evidence to bolster beliefs. Why do people deny science? Before accusing deniers, we have to realize denial is in all of us. Sometimes, the harmful consequences of our actions are not obvious, and it may be painful to take in information that hurts. We may feel anxiety and guilt and disavow a painful truth to protect ourselves (Randall & Brown 2016). Often, facts are disputed when there is a value conflict, and this conflict may be a proxy for deeper conflicts between alternative visions of the future (Hulme, 2009). One may deny global warming out of fear that solutions will lead to a world government taking away one’s freedom. Political antagonism, populism, and anti-intellectualism all feed into the denial of science, up from the local pub to the highest levels of government. If people deny science, it is often for psychological, sociological, and political reasons and they do so with opportunistic arguments.

Denial of science can be grotesque. Scientists have been attacked for researching evolution, stem cells, outer space, nature conservation, and the harms of smoking, sugar, concussions, and now massively, global warming (these are just a few examples). In the environmental domain, we have seen the initial denial of the harmful effects of DDT, toxic substances, nuclear waste disposal, “acid rain,” and the “ozone hole.” The good news here is that all issues are now more or less under control.

Science deniers are often well-organized in “greenscamming” organizations. They operate under environmentally friendly names, publish polarizing articles on their website, and utilize nifty PR strategies. The tobacco industry successfully deployed similar strategies in the past to confuse the public about the harm of cigarette smoking and to delay regulation.

Dr. Naomi Oreskes, co-author with Dr. Erik M. Conway of the Merchants of Doubt (2010). Credit: YouTube.

 

We may hope that in twenty years or so global warming can be added to the list above of environmental issues that have been dealt with. Meanwhile, what can scientists do to counter the denier’s deceit? Perhaps we should generously acknowledge that denial is a human trait (see above) and that debates are good for democratic deliberation and decision-making (recall the democratic science-public policy model in the Module Technocracy or Democracy?). And hold participants in the debate accountable to Habermas’ three validity claims in democratic conversations: truth, rightness, and truthfulness.

One strategy is to refute global warming misinformation. The “field guide” skepticalscience.com is precisely doing that.

Another strategy is to debunk the rhetorical tricks deniers use over and over again (Washington & Cook (2011). They present global warming as a conspiracy (hoax!). They are typically smart people in their field, but they misuse their recognition to provide fake expertise in an area they are not familiar with (there is no consensus!). They have impossible expectations of what science can achieve (they cannot even predict the weather!). Their ideologies lead to logical fallacies (climate has changed in the past!). Finally, cherry-picking is their favorite strategy (it’s the sun!). At this point, it is interesting to mention that deniers often call themselves “skeptics, ” which has a positive scientific connotation as we have seen. Some even identify themselves with Galileo Galilei, who dared to speak up against the dominant doctrine.

The third strategy for scientists is to become better science communicators. Instead of dropping data from on high at people, they should understand and connect to their audiences, tell academic narratives, and engage them. We will explore this topic, as well as epistemological and practical barriers, in the modules Science Communication and Science as Democracy.

Review question:
Find an article authored by a global warming denier. Can you identify one or more of the strategies outlined above?