Denialism

What we are experiencing with the deniers of technology, the enemies of science, the skeptics of artificial intelligence, the anti-vaxxers, the flat-earthers, and all sorts of conspiracy theorists and deniers of reality is nothing more than an expression of denialism. The problem is that a group of people has consciously chosen to demonize truth, (scientific) knowledge, and the scientific method. This group of people is essentially a motley crew consisting of progress-deniers, anti-vaxxers, religious fanatics, followers of extremist political groups, etc.

There is a prevailing opinion that we should not dismiss these people but instead try to convince them with dialogue and arguments. What those who hold this view seem to overlook is that this denialism is primarily psychological rather than philosophical, and is rooted in the avoidance of admitting an uncomfortable psychological truth. Therefore, there is absolutely no chance of convincing a follower of denialism.

And be careful: when I speak of denialism, we are not talking about a simple refusal of an empirical observation or a denial of a factual event, but about a condition in which someone systematically reacts by rejecting reality and (scientific) truth.

The way these people construct their arguments is predictable:

• they use conspiracy theories,
• they resort to incomplete data or isolate specific data while rejecting the rest,
• they invoke the authority of pseudo-experts,
  by “kicking the ball into the stands,” they distort the discussion and try to shift it to some other, usually unfulfilled, demand,
• they use various pseudo-arguments, such as logical fallacies.

So, how should we respond?

According to Alex Gillespie of the LSE, the stages of our response should be as follows:

• avoid any rational discussion with the followers of denialism,
• “neutralize” anyone spreading such views by attacking the credibility of their sources,
• if we cannot avoid the discussion, we limit the impact of their views by rationalizing the content of the debate.