Denial or Denialism? How Science Serves Us and How Logical Fallacies Can Derail its Service
Although the practice of science at its core needs to be driven by intrinsic theoretical interest, there is no ignoring the great benefit that sustained traditions of vigorous scientific inquiry have been and continue to be for us. This vigor of scientific inquiry is supplied by denial, that is, the continuous effort to scrutinize, by conceptual criticism or by experimentation, of currently favored theories. The success of this process requires steering clear always of a range of logical fallacies each of which separately and in combination threaten to turn denial into denialism. Once denialist traditions set in, they not only harm science by the resulting absence of genuine vigorous scrutiny, but hamper as well – even for non-denialists - our very understanding of the theories being denied by denialists, all too often miring the rest of us, albeit in the name of the opposing banner, in the very same fallacies corrupting the denialists’ efforts.
We should all agree, then, that denialism is bad for science, while denial is vital to it. The remainder left for us to discuss is how to distinguish between the two. Where to start is with the simple notice of the fact that denialism is always based in logical fallacy, while denial rigidly steers clear from it. To be sure, this approach is ideal in the sense that none of is fully free of the corrupting influences of logical fallacy.
Yet it can give us a criterion for deciding between the two poles and thus a way to guide us more aptly toward the one and away from the other. In this paper I describe the typical fallacies involved, separately or in combination –usually in combination! - and from that basis move on to flesh out more fully the respective profiles of one who is practicing denial vs. one who is practicing denialism.
But before doing so, here is a brief review of some of the denialist traditions that have been hampering the service of science. Of course, in theory, each of these items could have a genuine tradition of healthy denial linked to it, and at least some of the items on this list do; but their agenda and method of operation will clearly set them apart from the denialists; not to mention the fact that practitioners of genuine denial should be first in line to decry any denialist tradition in their own neighborhood. (Traditions of genuine denial may die down or flare up based on how great or small the margin of error of the theory in question is perceived to be.)
Bilingual Education Denialism – This movement is characterized by the claim that we should not be spending our money on programs with native-language instruction components, because they hamper the learning of English. Mostly limited to the U.S.A., its three main premises, apart from any ulterior motives, are first, that active acquisition and learning of one language can interfere with active acquisition and learning of another language simultaneously; that amount of time on task is the most decisive component of effective learning; and that immigrants have successfully lobbied government for native language instruction as a political entitlement. The first two of these premises go against all the evidence of educational research, while the third from a standpoint of political science is implausible, since many immigrants aren’t even citizens, and those who are have poor voting and political participation records overall.
DDT Denialism – The position of this movement is that DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)is not dangerous to humans and doubtfully dangerous to other life forms, while demonstratively effective in preventing deadly insect borne disease ravaging much of the world. DDT denialists typically advocate a return to our past practices in the form of the widespread programmatic use of DDT without restrictions. Genuine deniers here accept that DDT does harm certain animals, most notably raptors, and also perhaps humans at very high concentrations. Denialists here ignore studies showing clearly that mosquitoes overexposed to DDT can and do develop immunities to it, even in a relatively short term. Recently, a compromise has been reached allowing in many places the emergency use of DDT indoors. This has proven to be effective.
Global Warming Denialism –This movement is not univocal in form but is based either on the denial that global warming is happening at all, or that it is happening but is not that dangerous, or that it is happening and may be dangerous but is not caused by us.
Holocaust Denialism – This movement denies that there were millions of people killed in Hitler’s concentration camps in World War II, with the focus especially on Jews killed.
Fluoridation Denialism – This movement argues that putting fluoride in human water supplies harms us rather than helps us.
Tobacco-Cancer Denialism – This movement denies that tobacco products cause cancer in humans. It is in presently in decline but has not disappeared.
Natural Selection Denialism – This movement denies that the theory of Natural Selection advanced by Darwin and perfected by many others has scientific merit. The typical recommended alternative is Creationism, which, whether or not God really did create the world and whether or not if God created the world he made use of the mechanism of natural selection, is not a scientific theory at all, since it is not empirical.
Age of the Universe (and Earth) Denialism – This group insists that the Earth and the Universe are less than 10,000 years old. Their ulterior motive is an extremely rigid reading of the Old Testament/Tanach, or the Koran.
Moon-Landing Denialism– This movement insists that the moon-landings were an elaborate Hollywood hoax.
Shape of the Earth Denialism (Flat Earth Movements) –This movement, largely in decline - but only quite recently! – insists the world is flat and that this can be proven scientifically. Ulterior motive:
Again, an extremely rigid reading of the Old Testament/Tanach.
The logical fallacies typically involved in scientific denialism fall into two categories The first group are the generic ones typically involved in all forms of human self-deception. The second group are more specific, or particular to the practice of denialism in science.
The items on this list are not all mutually exclusive; in fact, you may notice some logical relationships between them. I will point out some along the way as well.
The generic fallacies are: ulterior-motives, the ad hominem fallacy, and the cherry-picking fallacy. The specific fallacies are: false dilemma, polemicism, politicization (of science), the full demonstration fallacy.
Ulterior motives outside of science are not supposed to affect the way we do and interpret science, but they have their way of creeping in: one’s politics, religion, lifestyle, demographic background, etc. all are liable to have an influence on how one sees and does science. It seems unrealistic to wish it all away. On the other hand, the inevitability that here or there, ulterior motives intrinsically irrelevant to science will bias it should not make us give way to it, but to stand guard against it all the more. Honest people with potential conflicts of interest are the first to disclose them to their peers, as a guard against their own bias. It is when we are less vigilant that we are more likely to fall prey to fallacy. So when I hear someone say “my politics have nothing to do with my positions as a scientist”, as if to scold me for my suspicions, I take that as a red flag. For the more we disclose openly to one another our potentially ulterior motives, the less likely they are to harm science, which after all is a social process. Yet we tend to want to hide our private motives, and the more we do, the more dangerous they are to our intellectual integrity and the integrity of the scientific process.
The ad hominemfallacy is used by denialists as a trump card to disregard evidence they would otherwise have to take seriously. For example, Bilingual Education denialists summarily impugn academic research not subservient to their cause by appeal to the liberal bias of academia. Bias is a two-way street, so at times the use of this fallacy by opposing sides leads to a stalemate. I may even use my accusation of my opponents’ bias as leverage for my own intentional bias – which was – by their own admission and marketing – the business plan of Fox News when it came on the air: to counter the “liberal media bias” with their own conservative bias. That they got away with this and even increased their own popularity therebyis reason for us all to take somber pause – conservatives and progressives alike - about the direction in which our culture is headed. The fact is, we should let the evidence or argument a person presents speak for itself, rather than disqualify it from consideration due to its source.
Cherry-picking is the defining fallacy of self-deception. If I sense the inconvenience of a certain conclusion, I can steer myself away from it simply by a selective consideration of the evidence, conveniently ignoring the evidence favoring the position which I sense to be inconvenient, considering or “cherry-picking” only that evidence which does not lead in that direction. No matter one’s position on Global Warming, we should all recognize the inconvenience of the conclusion. If the global warming thesis really is true, then that means we have to make a lot of inconvenient lifestyle changes in order not to leave future human generations in the lurch. We love the long, hot showers; we love idling our cars for half-hours at a time while waiting to pick someone up – in the winter, to keep the heater on; in the summer, to keep the air-conditioner on. We’d have to rethink our whole consumer-based economy. Who wants to do that? The point is that our awareness of this propensity we have should make us all stand vigilant against falling to this kind of self-deception, and accepting any alliance with parties affected in this way. If you are otherwise an honest denier but you accept alliance with denialists, then by that very act you are now a denialist.
Getting to the fallacies more specific to denialism in science, the fallacy of false dilemma may be the one that does the most to throw us off track from the dialog we should be having. It forces us away from the productive pathways of good scientific and philosophical reasoning, both of which are based on framing issues by contradictory opposition. Contradictory opposition is vital because it divides the universe of discourse into exhaustive choices – usually two, but by multiple uses it can be more – so that every possible choice to be made on a matter is on the table, with nothing hidden from sight.
The fallacy of false dilemma consists in framing an issue surreptitiously as a contrary opposition rather than a contradictory one. The result of this is that we now have a false, i.e. non-exhaustive choice between two contrary extremes while ignoring all the middle ground in between. The results are many tragically false battles: socialism vs. capitalism, conservative vs. progressive, and, in American History, even black vs. white. In all these cases, there clearly is much rich middle ground to be explored, but insofar as the effects of the fallacy register, doesn’t get explored. Contraries are sexy and newsy, while the nuances between them seem drab in comparison. Alas, under the dominion of false dilemma, where the truth lies can never be known, nor can we even approach knowledge of it, since the issue in the first place has not been squarely framed.
Overt cases of this fallacy are actually less dangerous, since they are more easily spotted and remedied. It is the covert cases that plague us. Take for example, the use of this fallacy by Global Warming denialists.
It seems to be a simple enough matter. Either the Global Warming thesis is true, or it is not true; sounds like a perfectly contradictory opposition as stated. But in fact, it is a contrary opposition. The reason for this lies in the fact that science, as empirical, is based on induction. Scientific induction is generalization based on incomplete evidence. This in turns makes all scientific claims essentially probability claims, notwithstanding the fact that we don’t typically state them as such. So the global warming theory, however you wish to state it, is actually a probability statement: such-and-such body of evidence leads to the conclusion that theory T is true with a probability of n, where 0 ≤ n < 1. Scientific theories can have a probability of 0, or 0% if they have been falsified. But they can never have a theoretical probability of 1, or 100%. That is because we will never be able to make all possible observations of a matter; for example, there will always be future observations to be made; or observations from a slightly different perspective, etc., ad infinitum.
On the other hand, scientific theories can approach the probability of 1 or 100% as an asymptotic limit. That is the aim of science, to find theories that approach a probability of 1 as an asymptotic limit.
With all this said, we can now see why Global Warming denialists, by simply denying that Global Warming is true, are committing the fallacy of False Dilemma. The proper denial of Global Warming theory – the contradictory opposition to it, should just be stated as: the probability that Global Warming is true is not as high as its proponents claim it is. Yes, this sounds drab and nerdy; not sexy or newsy at all.
Of course, if someone wants to take on Global Warming as a theory and not just criticize it on the sidelines – which latter, by the way, is a commendable and honorable activity in its own right, if done honestly, then she can form a hypothesis and test it scientifically, according to the following form:
If Theory T is true, then we should be able to make observation O under the following specified conditions C. If under conditions C O cannot be observed, then T is false.
Of course, everything would have to be subject to scrutiny, from the logic of hypothesis formation to the methodology of the observation attempts; and it would have to be repeatable. It would be a gradual process.
No denialists are doing this, and if they were, they wouldn’t be denialists, they would be scientists.
At this point a critic might point out that Newton’s theory, was in effect falsified by one failed prediction (well, actually two, but only one would have done the trick.) The one I choose to mention here was that a ray of light passing by a heavenly body would go straight by it without bending. In fact, light does bend when passing by heavenly bodies; hence, Newton’s theory is false. The reason for this simple falsification is that Newton’s theory was stated as a simple general or universal claim, and it is the nature of such claims that they can be falsified by a single failed prediction. But that is not the case with existential claims, and some scientific claims are existential. For example, the claim that there is life somewhere else in the universe other than earth is a claim that can actually be verified by one single observation, but could only be falsified by a comprehensively infinite set of observations. Global warming, essentially, is not a general claim, but an existential one, i.e., awkward though it sounds, “Global warming exists on earth.” In fact, it is not one simple existential claim, but a complex of them. As such, it cannot be falsified by one single observation. But it still ought to be subjected to ongoing scrutiny.
What I call the polemicist fallacy is the logic error of ignoring the fact that every opposition, as Aristotle famously taught, is based on a more fundamental common ground. Ignoring this common ground, or the search for it, leads to acceptance of the difference as irreconcilable, leaving us only with the option of polemic argument rather than reconciliatory dialog. This fallacy might be thought of as emotional and moral as well as logical, since it is at the heart of all war and dissension among persons and peoples.
The Aristotelian notion is simple: if you claim, say, that God exists and I deny the claim, that implies that we have a common notion of God; for if we don’t, then we can’t be disagreed on whether God exists! For you, by God, may mean Zeus, and I may mean Hermes. My denial that Hermes exists coupled with your affirmation of Zeus does not constitute a disagreement!
The possibility-to-probability fallacy is the logical error of assuming that proof of possibility is proof of probability. In fact, many things that are possible are not probable at all; that is to say, they are negligibly probable. It is utterly irrational to act, or refrain from acting, based on negligible probabilities.
This leads us on to consideration of a special case of the latter mentioned fallacy: what I call the fallacy of full demonstration. This is the error of reasoning according to which opinions or theories are thought not to be accepted or acted upon until they have been fully demonstrated. It is a special case of the possibility-to-probability fallacy in that any possible doubt at all that a theory or opinion is true requires us to hold out until it has been definitively resolved, based on the misguided idea that every possibility represents a distinct probability. In fact, only doubts shown by positive evidence to be distinctly probable are worthy grounds for withholding assent.