This post is brought to you by information I learned from the free online course from University of Queensland, Making Sense of Climate Denial. https://www.edx.org/learn/climate-change/the-university-of-queensland-making-sense-of-climate-science-denial

Skepticism vs Denial

Skepticism and denial are often confused with each other, but they are actually two very different things. Skepticism is a healthy way of thinking that involves questioning everything and considering all sides of an issue before forming an opinion. Denial, on the other hand, is a refusal to accept reality, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Scientists are trained to be skeptical. They question everything, even their own findings. This is why it takes so long for scientific consensus to form. Scientists need to be sure that their findings are accurate and reliable before they are willing to accept them.

Denialists, on the other hand, are not interested in the truth. They have already made up their minds about something, and they will not be swayed by any evidence to the contrary. They often use logical fallacies and emotional appeals to try to convince others to believe them, but their arguments are usually based on ignorance or wishful thinking.

It is important to be able to tell the difference between skepticism and denial. Skepticism is a healthy way of thinking that can help us to learn and grow. Denial, on the other hand, is a dangerous way of thinking that can lead to bad decisions and even harm.

If you are ever unsure whether someone is being skeptical or denying, ask them these questions:

    • Are they willing to consider all sides of the issue?

    • Are they open to new evidence?

    • Are they willing to change their mind if presented with new information?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then the person is probably denying, not being skeptical.

So what you really want to know is how to tell the difference between scepticism and denial. Are there any tell-tale characteristics of science denial? Over the years, there’ve been many different occasions when groups of people denied a scientific consensus. For example, the link between smoking and cancer, that humans evolved from lower lifeforms and more recently, human-caused global warming. All those forms of denial focus on different areas of science. But a scientific paper by Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee found that regardless of which science is being targeted, all denial shares five characteristics.

Diethelm and McKee identify them as Fake Experts, Logical Fallacies, Impossible Expectations, Cherry Picking and Conspiracy Theories. I’ve found that an easy way to remember them is using the acronym FLICC. Let’s have a closer look at each one.

Fake experts. 

People tend to attribute more expertise to those who agree with their existing beliefs and values. So if you ask someone what scientists think about an issue, they’ll do a mental survey of experts they remember. People are then more likely to recall experts who they agree with.

This results in a distorted perception of scientific consensus. The more you disagree with a consensus position, the lower you think that consensus is.

Logical fallacies. 

can arise from confirmation bias, which is the tendency to favour evidence that confirms our beliefs. For example, people can misrepresent an opponent’s position by focusing on their weaker arguments while ignoring their stronger arguments. This is known as a strawman argument. 

Impossible Expectations

The flip side of confirmation bias is disconfirmation bias, which occurs when threatening evidence is vigorously resisted. This results in demanding higher levels of proof for evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. In other words, impossible expectations can be a result of disconfirmation bias.

Cherry picking. 

This can also result from confirmation bias, putting more weight on agreeable information while downplaying disagreeable evidence. We remember the hits but tend to forget the misses. For example, in one study, people were told about a breakdown at a nuclear power plant. Pro-nuclear participants focused on the fact that the safeguards worked. In contrast, nuclear opponents focused on the fact that the breakdown happened at all. In the end, both groups strengthened their original belief.

Conspiracy theories.

A number of studies have found that people who deny climate science are more likely to show conspiratorial thinking. For example, one study found that for people who denied climate change, the most common response to the mention of climate change was conspiracy theories or the belief that climate change was a hoax.

Bringing it all together

So those are the five characteristics of science denial. But here’s an important point. Just because these techniques distort the science doesn’t mean they’re deliberately deceptive. So let’s go through the five characteristics of FLICC, looking at how they can arise from unconscious biases that operate at a psychological level.

About 20% of the people in America, and around 15% in the United Kingdom, to varying degrees agree with the proposition that climate change is a hoax. It might be easy to accuse someone of intentionally trying to deceive us when they present arguments that oppose the scientific consensus. But the science of science denial tells us that these same arguments can arise from unconscious psychological processes. To the outside eye, genuinely held but false beliefs, or misinformation, can be indistinguishable from intentional deception, or disinformation. That means you’re on more solid ground addressing the techniques of denial rather than trying to discern the motives of an individual. In fact, focusing on motive can be counterproductive as it can provide opportunity to evade the scientific arguments. By understanding the techniques of denial, and the psychology underlying it, you’re better equipped to respond to expressions of science denial.