Science denial

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jim Inhofe 2015 at a Senate speech in which he polemicized with a snowball against the existence of man-made global warming .

Science denialism (often also English: Science denial or science denialism ) describes the social phenomenon that scientifically undisputed knowledge is rejected or outright denied by certain groups of people or organizations. In German, no generally established term has yet established itself; In addition to the English-language terms and denial of science , the denial of science , denialism or denial is also sometimes used here . The corresponding persons are in German u. a. referred to as a science denier.

A rough distinction can be made between a personal rejection of scientific knowledge by private individuals and a public denial by organizations and persons with the specific aim of duping the public about scientific knowledge. The denial itself can be active or passive (depending on whether the deniers at odds with scientific findings or not), inward or outward (i. E. On self-deception be designed or deception of others, such as in disinformation campaigns by industry groupings) and it can have many different reasons. These include, among other things, the reward with material remuneration or immaterial goods such as recognition by or belonging to certain social groups.

Originally, the term “denialism” with the meaning of the “systematic and ideologically motivated negation of reality and truth” was initially used primarily for denial of the Holocaust , that is, the denial of reliable knowledge of the historical sciences. Nowadays, however, it is used much more widely, including for denying man-made global warming , denying the moon landing or denying AIDS . Denialism also includes the rejection of the theory of evolution by supporters of creationism or its sub-form intelligent design , the denial of the theory of relativity (i.e. the denial of reliable knowledge of physics ), the actions of vaccine opponents , the denial of the health-damaging consequences of tobacco consumption and denial the harmful effects of air pollution . Other forms include belief in a flat earth or denying the negative effects of the spread of invasive species . Science denial also plays an important role in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic , with populist leaders in particular not wanting to accept the effects of the pandemic on their states and also in dealing with the pandemic on tactics of science denial such as spreading conspiracy theories on the pandemic or resorted to citing false experts. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro stood out as a particularly strong denier , whose handling of the pandemic is not only characterized by the rejection of health guidelines and the state of research on certain treatment methods, but also by the suppression of knowledge that contradicts Bolsonaro's convictions.

Science denial is based on not wanting to believe scientific knowledge, so it is not advisable to use the term “ skepticism ” for this, as this is an obvious misnomer. Criticism, “skepticism” and the falsification of hypotheses are the core of scientific work. Science denial, on the other hand, aims at ignorance of the scientific discourse and not at a critical examination of the state of science . Denial movements try to undermine science itself in order to distort the public understanding of scientific methods and to arouse distrust of scientific institutions.

The denial of scientific knowledge occurs above all where groups of (interest) groups exist which, for personal reasons, have a strong, intrinsic interest in disputing a scientific consensus in an area. Often dangers or negative effects are played down or played down. The causes of denialism are fundamental problems in understanding the scientific method as well as deliberate disinformation campaigns by industrial companies and lobby associations, such as B. by the tobacco industry , the DDT industry or the lead industry . The aim of such campaigns is to reject scientifically recognized doctrines ( theorems ) about which there is a broad consensus in research. There are personal, organizational and financial connections between these individual forms of the organized denial of scientific knowledge promoted by interest groups. By far the best coordinated form of denialism with the greatest financial resources is the organized denial of man-made climate change, which also represents the backbone of the general fight against environmental research and environmental protection . These organized campaigns to deny man-made climate change and its effects began practically as soon as climate change became a public concern in the late 1980s.

definition

The five central characteristics of the denial of scientific knowledge and their breakdown

Denialism is commonly defined as "reluctance to believe existing scientific evidence". Lewandowsky et al. understand the rejection of scientific knowledge as "the rejection of well-founded scientific knowledge for reasons that are not scientifically motivated". McLintic describes science denial as “the rejection of a scientific consensus outside of peer review and without relevant expertise , in which the scientific knowledge is typically perceived as a threat”.

The Hoofnagle brothers define science denial as "using rhetorical arguments to create the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none". According to Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee , whose publication in turn builds on the preliminary work of the Hoofnagle brothers, the deliberate denial of the scientific consensus in a certain field is "a process that uses some or all of the following five elements in a coordinated manner":

  1. The responsibility of conspiracy
  2. The use of false experts who hold an opinion that goes against the state of research
  3. Selectivity or cherry picking when selecting data
  4. Imposing impossible demands on scientific research
  5. The recourse to misrepresentations and logical fallacies

In English, in addition to denial and denialism , the terms skepticism , contrarianism , antiscience , doubt and dismissal are used, although the exact meanings can sometimes differ slightly. Many researchers find it important to point out that science denial should not be confused with skepticism , or that it is problematic to label science deniers as skeptics. Skepticism towards scientific theses is a core element of science , which serves as a driving force in scientific debates and increases the quality of new statements through mechanisms such as peer review and replication of experimental research. This “functional skepticism” is based on the scientific ethos that researchers use data to update their beliefs regardless of the result. In contrast to this functional skepticism, science deniers would only accept evidence if it confirmed their pre-existing beliefs, which usually contradict scientific consensus. So this is a dysfunctional skepticism that is driven less by evidence than by the denial's desire to see how he would like things. Science denial is a form of motivated rejection of science.

actors

The denial of science is pursued by a large number of different actors with different motivations. In the environment and health sector, where scientific denial is widespread, six main groups can be distinguished: denying scientists, governments, political and religious organizations, industrialists, media and ordinary people.

scientist

Fred Singer is considered to be the “most productive” of the “universally applicable commercial deniers” of scientific findings.

Scientists who deny evidence of environmental problems such as acid rain , the ozone hole or global warming constitute a small minority in the scientific community. They are usually not part of the research community in the respective subject and often do not work at academic institutions, but stand often in connection with relevant think tanks such as B. the Heartland Institute , the George C. Marshall Institute or the Institute of Public Affairs . For example, the very few (nature) scientists among the climate deniers were mostly not climate researchers, but often physicists, plus some older meteorologists . Even among AIDS deniers, a few scientists portrayed as "heroes" played a major role in lending this movement "a patina of scientific legitimacy."

The scientists are presented as reliable authorities in order to give credibility to the false assertions and half-truths that have been expressed. This strategy goes back to the tobacco industry : it recognized as early as the 1950s that the conflict of interest would be (too) obvious if it were to attack scientific findings on the harmfulness of smoking itself. However, if scientists were to question the scientific findings, the credibility would be much higher. The tobacco industry then looked specifically for scientists who were willing to publicly question the scientific findings.

Governments

Governments are also sometimes drivers of science denial. The US government under President George W. Bush was identified as an important actor in the “war against science”. It acted against science in various areas, especially climate research, and even institutionalized climate denial within the government. This allowed actors from the fossil fuel industry and conservative think tanks to take action against climate research from within the government. Other governments such as the Canadian one under Stephen Harper and the Australian one under John Howard actively use ignorance education measures to weaken the will of the people to protect the climate. AIDS denial was in turn significantly promoted by the South African government under Thabo Mbeki .

With Donald Trump a climate change deniers US president was in January 2017 also. He also filled the cabinet positions relevant to climate policy with climate change deniers: among others, long-time ExxonMobil boss Rex Tillerson became foreign minister, former attorney general and lobbyist Scott Pruitt head of the EPA environmental agency , former Texas governor Rick Perry energy minister and environmental protection opponent Ryan Zinke became interior minister . Initial findings indicate that the Trump administration is even more active in science denial than previous governments. Scientists see e.g. B. An attack on and a transformation of the environmental agency EPA into an anti-science organization, which is historically unique despite similar actions under the Reagan and Bush administrations. In particular, the EPA is also attested to a clear change of course away from its actual mandate, environmental and health protection, and towards the special interests of industrial companies, which would speak strongly in favor of regulatory capture , i.e. H. a capture of government agencies by lobby groups.

Political and religious organizations

Another important driver are political and religious organizations such as B. Think tanks , foundations and other institutes. In the literature, the role that the conservative movement played in the USA with think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation , the Cato Institute or the Heartland Institute is particularly highlighted . In addition, other neoliberal and neoconservative organizations were active, including the Republican Party , the Tea Party movement and the Christian right . These are spreading their science denial, especially climate change denial, to other parts of the world. Outside the U.S. a. the Think Tank Institute of Public Affairs in Australia and the Stockholm Network in Europe. The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow in turn contributes to the close networking of European, American and Australian think tanks.

Industry

Organized denial of scientific evidence began in the 1950s with the tobacco industry's denial of the health hazards of tobacco smoking.

Business enterprises, especially industrial enterprises, trade associations and organizations founded by them are important financiers for the denial of scientific knowledge and especially for activities that are directed against environmental research. The attacks by industrial companies on science were initiated in the 1950s by the tobacco industry . At that time it was already known that tobacco products were harmful to health. Therefore, she began to sow doubts in a targeted manner by making large amounts of money available to think tanks and front organizations, with which they then, together with specially recruited scientists, questioned the state of research. This procedure, also known as the "tobacco strategy", was subsequently adopted by a large number of other branches of industry in order to dispute scientific evidence of damage to the environment and health caused by industrial products or to make it appear implausible. It first took over the DDT industry in the 1960s. Later it was u. a. used to deny the effects of acid rain, then to deny the ozone-depleting effects of fluorocarbons, and finally to deny man-made global warming.

The climate change denial is being promoted in particular by companies in the oil and coal industries, even if steel producers, automobile manufacturers and mining companies are also important drivers of such activities. Some of these companies conduct their denial through supposedly independent organizations; early examples of this were e.g. B. the Global Climate Coalition or the Information Council on the Environment . There are also parallels with the tobacco industry's denial of science . Climate change deniers took over z. Take, for example, the strategies of the tobacco industry, but have added additional elements to it, such as the accusation that climate researchers were involved in a conspiracy or that they were engaged in scientific misconduct.

media

There are various studies that deal with science denial in the media , with a strong correlation between the right-wing orientation of the media and the publication of articles with science-denying content. For example, Fox News broadcast more content that contradicted the scientific consensus on man-made global warming than other broadcasters such as MSNBC or CNN, and also invited climate change deniers to the programs more often. Blogs and social media play another important role in the denial of scientific findings , not least by setting up an echo chamber .

Publicity

Summary results for the public denial of science are primarily available for the denial of man-made global warming. For the US, a strong polarization within the population was found, with people who viewed themselves as Democrats or “liberals” much more likely to recognize global warming than Conservatives and Republicans. Climate denial is most widespread among conservative white men. In the UK, climate denial is most pronounced among the poorly socio-economic elderly, conservative people, men and car owners. In Germany, climate change deniers are more often than the average male and come from eastern Germany, but the socio-economic position is of little importance.

Action

General approach of science deniers

Science deniers use a number of different tactics to deny science they dislike. The biologist Sean B. Carroll names six core tactics, some of which have been used repeatedly since the 19th century. This collection, which he describes as the "fundamental handbook of denialism", comprises the following procedure by means of which one can distinguish scientific denial from genuine scientific debate:

  1. "Create doubts about science."
  2. "Question the personal motives and integrity of scientists."
  3. "Build up real disagreements in research and cite non-experts with minority opinions as authorities."
  4. "Exaggerate the possible dangers that can arise from the respective topic."
  5. "Present the issue as a threat to personal freedom."
  6. "Claim that acceptance of a key philosophy, religious belief, or custom would contradict a group."

Economically motivated science denial

The central approach of science deniers from industry is the so-called tobacco strategy , which has been used by a large number of other industrial companies and branches since its development in addition to the eponymous tobacco industry in order to dispute scientific findings from environmental research or medicine that have negative effects on the Could have business. The product defense strategy described below, which is largely based on the creation of uncertainty , is used by a large number of industrial sectors whose products are harmful to the environment and health and which therefore oppose environmental and health legislation. Examples include the defense of asbestos , benzene , beryllium , chromium , diesel exhaust , lead and plastics, as well as tobacco products and fossil fuels to delay climate policy .

Beginnings

The history of the economically motivated denial of science by industrial companies , sometimes referred to as the “ product defense industry ” in the specialist literature , goes back to the early 20th century. At the time, scientific studies showed that the ingestion of lead had harmful effects on the human body. Since this realization posed a threat to the lead industry, the Lead Industries Association began a campaign aimed at masking the health dangers of lead. The campaign included funding studies to demonstrate lead safety, challenging reports of lead poisoning, and intimidating scientists whose studies showed lead to health hazards. In addition, in 1918 the lead industry began a PR campaign that ultimately lasted over 35 years, aimed at convincing the public of the safety of using lead. All of these measures resulted in the US only enacting laws regulating lead-based paints in the 1970s.

The tobacco strategy

The practice of challenging scientific knowledge has been adopted and matured by the tobacco industry. Building on the experience of the lead industry, the Hill and Knowlton advertising agency developed a decades-long defense strategy for tobacco products. This included, among other things, attacks on scientists and studies pointing to links between tobacco use and cancer, funding studies looking at other causes of cancer development in order to distract attention from the role of tobacco, and dissemination of these materials via front organizations and media campaigns .

In the scientific literature, the tobacco strategy is described as “a concerted action to arouse doubts about established science in order to achieve a certain political goal.” In order to address these doubts, the tobacco industry developed a set of measures consisting of various individual tactics. This included:

  • Search for a few sympathetic scientists who carried the doubtful messages to the public.
  • Misrepresentation about the number of scientists to suggest that there is a lot of debate in science about the subject at hand.
  • Cherry-picking the data and focusing on a few unexplained or anomalous details while ignoring the overwhelming majority of data that support the scientific consensus.
  • Creating the impression of controversy by asking questions even when the answers to them are known and do not support the views of the industry in question
  • Demand for "fair" reporting, in which the scientific opinion and the opinion of the industry are given equal space.

The tobacco strategy proved highly successful. Thus, the tobacco industry managed to sustain the public debate about the health dangers of tobacco use for decades after this question was clarified in science. The aim was not to prove the harmlessness of cigarettes (the tobacco managers were aware that this would be a hopeless endeavor), but only to stir up doubts. An internal document from the tobacco industry, written in 1969, states:

“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. "

“Doubt is our product because it is the best way to compete with the 'corpus of facts' that exists in the public mind. It is also the means of generating controversy. "

At the same time, the chemical industry also used similar methods and launched, among other things, an aggressive denunciation strategy against Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring in order to discredit it and the scientific documentation contained therein. In addition to selected scientists presented as supposed experts, media campaigns in major newspapers and an "alternative" to Silent Spring published by Monsanto , Carson was also personally attacked.

The aim of these product defense strategies is to direct the scientific process as such. Among other things, research is to be directed into other channels that are harmless for the respective manufacturers, information about harmful aspects of the products is to be concealed and scientific findings and researchers are to be attacked who carry out research that is harmful to the company's business. At the same time, we are working hard to ensure that the media report on the product in question in a favorable manner.

effect

Through the use of rhetorical tactics such as For example, cherry-picking, applying logical fallacies or resorting to false experts, industry-funded studies often come to diametrically different conclusions than studies by independent scientists; sometimes they suppress results that are unfavorable for their clients. For example, one review found that studies conducted by the tobacco industry were 88 times more likely to conclude that passive smoking is safe than studies conducted by independent researchers.

Epistemological characteristics

According to Sven Ove Hansson, the approach of denialists has four distinct characteristics:

Cherry picking

Alleged global warming pause . Many climate deniers use the selectively selected temperature segment from 1998 to 2012 to argue that global warming has come to a standstill.

Scientific working methods are based on observing the entire range of circumstantial evidence and evidence for a fact, as this is the only way to obtain a complete picture of the factual situation with which one can arrive at a well-founded judgment. Instead, the technique of cherry-picking is based on only considering individual aspects and ignoring contradicting results in order to suggest a situation that deviates from the overall picture of all evidence. With the technique of cherry-picking it is possible to “prove” almost anything if the evidence is deliberately and selectively chosen.

An example of cherry-picking is the argument, sometimes made by evolution deniers, that fossils that span more than one geological layer are evidence against evolutionary theory. In fact, the presence of such fossils can be explained by the rapid deposition of sediments around a fossil. Another form of cherry-picking is so-called "quote mining", in which quotations are deliberately taken out of context in order to then distort the meaning of the overall statements. For example, quotes from scientists who argue about exactly how evolution took place are reinterpreted by creationists and then cited as evidence against evolution itself . Climate change deniers use cherry-picking and a. to construct a supposed pause in global warming that did not actually take place. A well-known example is the selective selection of the year 1998 for the calculation of temperature trends. With this extremely warm year as the starting point of the time series, the following years give the impression of a significantly lower temperature rise. On this basis, climate deniers falsely argued that global warming had stalled since 1998. If, on the other hand, 1997 is used as the starting point instead of 1998, the whole argument falls apart.

Science deniers also often choose their authorities very selectively. For example, AIDS deniers B. Studies that prove that AIDS is caused by the HI virus, on the grounds that they are partial due to research funding from the pharmaceutical industry. On the other hand, they often uncritically accept statements from other AIDS deniers who profit financially from the sale of “alternative AIDS medicine”.

Ignoring conflicting information

Another characteristic of denialists is disregarding conflicting information. A core of scientific work is the further development of knowledge, with new knowledge gradually replacing old ones. Science deniers, on the other hand, usually stubbornly hold on to outdated ideas that have been made obsolete by modern knowledge and refuse to give them up. For example, some evolutionary deniers claim that the eye is too complex to have evolved through an evolutionary process. This argument is based on the assumption that the eye as a whole must have emerged in a single event. In fact, Charles Darwin already pointed out that, starting from light-sensitive cells, the eye must have gradually developed through various stages. The same applies to the arguments of young earth creationists who claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Such claims have long been disproved by geological dating methods such as radiometric dating , but they continue to be made. Climate change deniers, on the other hand, often claim that the currently observed global warming is due to the sun, but this has been refuted by a large number of studies. One of the main reasons that such “zombie arguments” can last a long time is that science deniers mainly publish outside of the peer-reviewed specialist literature and thus move outside of the internal scientific quality assurance.

Generation of artificial controversy

An important strategy of denialists is the generation of artificial "controversies" in which scientifically undisputed topics are presented to the public as large and supposedly open scientific controversies. This is often used when denialists have not previously succeeded in asserting their views in public. For this strategy to be implemented successfully, it is usually sufficient to convince decision-makers that their point of view is credible enough to be taken seriously. This misunderstanding of the scientific state of affairs is facilitated by the fact that decision-makers and the public, especially if they do not have a scientific background, often have problems recognizing the differences between the results of an individual study, a group of studies and a scientific consensus based on a large number of studies . This problem is exacerbated by media coverage in which such differences are not worked out or are not worked out clearly enough. To make matters worse, science deniers often cleverly exploit such difficulties. Historical scientific research shows that such alleged controversies were used by industries, among other things, to disinform the population about the dangers of tobacco consumption, the causes of acid rain, the role of chlorofluorocarbons in the destruction of the ozone layer and the reality of man-made global warming and these To falsely portray topics as scientifically controversial. For example, since the mid-2000s at the latest, it has been clearly recognized that industry lobbyists in conjunction with interest groups and PR agencies have manipulated climate science and exploited the US media to falsely convey the appearance of an intense controversy on climate change.

Relativity theory, evolution theory

This strategy has already been used by the deniers of the theory of relativity, who went to great lengths to give the public the impression that their position was a serious alternative explanatory theory to the established scientific doctrine. So emphasized z. B. Arvid Reuterdahl (1876–1933) very often that there is an enormous scientific debate about this question in which the advocates of the theory of relativity are constantly being pushed back. Even creationists proceeded to to use this strategy, after her original plan in US schools only the biblical creation story to teach in 1968 with a defeat before the Supreme Court of the United States had failed. After this court ruling, they changed their approach and from now on demanded that biblical creation history and the scientific theory of evolution should be taught equally and with the same expenditure of time in schools. This demand got a strong impetus from statements of the then US President Ronald Reagan , who in 1980 called evolution “only a scientific theory”, which had “great flaws”, and took the view that if the theory of evolution was taught in schools, then the story of creation should also be taught.

Climate change denial

Even climate deniers demanded “the same time” for their position from the start, albeit initially not in school but in the media. They had learned from the tobacco industry how to use the tactics of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt to stir up doubts about scientific knowledge and thus create the public impression of a scientific controversy that actually does not exist at all. In order to create this supposed controversy, companies and conservative think tanks recruited a small number of climate-skeptical scientists and other supposed experts (often without expertise in climate-related issues) who were supposed to not only criticize real scientific research, but also create an alternative to it, to deliberately confuse the public and politicians. The way real research works is specifically imitated: the Contrarians publish (mostly non- peer-reviewed ) reports and books, publish in marginal journals, hold conferences and also compile lists of scientists who allegedly doubt man-made warming. An example of this method is the creation of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change by the Heartland Institute as a counterpart to the IPCC . The motivation for this was to not only make the central findings of climate research, that the earth warms significantly through human activity and that this will have negative consequences, appear unsafe for the public, but also to give the impression that they are in science to a considerable extent controversial. The counter-claims to the findings of climate research are at the same time widely circulated and often supplemented with accusations of scientific misconduct in order to achieve a special effect on the public and politics and to undermine the need for climate protection.

This practice has been extremely successful, particularly in the United States. After the media originally reported the state of affairs on global warming largely correctly, from around 1995 onwards they began reporting supposedly " balanced " reports. H. to present scientific knowledge and alleged scientific alternative opinions, as they were put forward by climate denial organizations, in their reporting. Something similar happened in other states. As a result of supposedly neutral reporting, this resulted in an informative imbalance, which was triggered by the fact that the reporting on climate research deviated significantly from the teaching opinion in the subject itself. This effect was triggered by a multi-media campaign, the aim of which is to deliberately convey a false picture of the state of research. In doing so, climate deniers succeeded in creating a “monumental illusion”, namely that there is no consensus on fundamental findings within climate research, but rather that there is controversy. In the meantime, this so-called “ controversy about global warming ” is considered the prime example of a “controversy” artificially generated and fueled by interest groups from business and politics without any real equivalent within science.

AIDS denial

AIDS deniers also succeeded in using this approach to give the public a false impression of the state of research. In 2000, the then South African President Thabo Mbeki - himself an AIDS denier - convened the so-called "Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel". All internationally known AIDS deniers were appointed to this body, who were then to debate with recognized South African AIDS researchers. The fact that AIDS deniers and scientists were represented equally gave the public the impression that there was a real scientific debate about HIV and AIDS within science. Thus this body, which according to Nicoli Nattrass and Seth C. Kalichman belonged "to the world's best AIDS scientists and the most discredited AIDS deniers in the world", created the illusion of a (scientific) "AIDS debate, the skepticism towards scientific justified well-founded knowledge ”. At the same time, inclusion in the panel gave a number of pseudoscientists and scientific outsiders a credibility that they could draw on for a long time.

Air pollution

Another supposedly scientific debate broke out in Germany at the beginning of 2019 about the health dangers of air pollution , in particular from nitrogen oxides and fine dust . This was triggered by a small group of pulmonologists and engineers led by the physician Dieter Köhler , who questioned the scientific evidence for pollutant limit values ​​and called for limit values ​​to be relaxed . Although the scientific evidence on the harmfulness of air pollution had previously grown significantly and negative health effects were shown to occur well below the limit values, the claims of this group were quickly spread via regular media and social media and welcomed by politicians, industry associations and parts of the public. Using numerous communication channels, including interviews and talk shows , distorted and manipulative claims about the state of research were presented to the public in order to make unsubstantiated false claims and to question the findings of scientific studies. The distorted and massive reporting in the media, where the debate was apparently presented in a balanced way as a supposedly scientific discussion with two (equal) sides, ultimately led to great doubts about the scientific state of affairs being sown among the population. In fact, the supposedly scientific debate had all the hallmarks of other misinformation campaigns , such as those to deny global warming or the tobacco industry's campaigns to defend their products.

Similar attacks on the scientific evidence, aimed at softening limit values, can also be found in other countries. In the US, for example, industrial lobbyists who have been given leadership positions in the EPA by the Trump administration are working to abolish decades of successful science-based measures to maintain air purity, while lobbyists in Europe are working on findings from the International Agency for Research on Cancer on the link between air pollution and air pollution Doubt cancer .

Criteria for the acceptance of knowledge that deviate from the scientific norm

A central component of the scientific work ethic is that the acceptance of scientific knowledge should not be influenced by ideology or wishful thinking. Deviating from this norm, science deniers set very special criteria for the acceptance of evidence for theories they contest, which are almost always impossible to meet. This includes, for example, the demand for absolute security, which is based both on an outdated view of science and demands the impossible.

Such a form of claims that cannot be met in practice are e.g. For example, the demands often made by opponents of vaccination that vaccinations must achieve a 100% safe result or should not have any side effects. One way to implement this strategy is e.g. B. the so-called "moving the goalposts". Here, science deniers always choose their requirements for science in such a way that they cannot be met, and postpone them further and further as their knowledge progresses. For example, AIDS deniers argued . As late as the 1980s, for example, that the drugs against AIDS were not effective and did not significantly extend the life span. However, when more effective drugs emerged in the 1990s that significantly increased survival rates, they rejected their position that survival rates were a suitable criterion for the effectiveness of drugs.

Another form, the rejection of certain chains of evidence, was used by the tobacco industry to discredit the findings of medical research in various campaigns that tobacco consumption is harmful to health. For example, representatives paid by the tobacco industry argued that epidemiological chains of evidence should generally be ignored or discarded if they did not produce very clear results or demonstrated enormous risks. Among other things, the tobacco company Philip Morris International tried in the early 1990s to establish a new epidemiological standard that it called “Good Epidemiological Practice”, according to which all studies with an odds ratio of less than 2 would have to be eliminated. With that he could suddenly have declared a large part of all research on the health effects of various pollutants invalid. After this methodology was unanimously rejected by the scientific community, Philip Morris abandoned the establishment of this standard. Other tobacco companies such as British American Tobacco continued to use this argument to deny the health dangers of passive smoking. Still other representatives of the tobacco industry went a step further, claiming that epidemiology was not a real science at all. Much like the tobacco industry, many scientists argued against the lowering of limit values ​​for harmful substances on behalf of other industrial companies. If one followed such a reinterpretation of science, many health risks with sometimes considerable death tolls, such as passive smoking , would be protected from any reduction measures. In addition to this economically motivated rejection of epidemiological studies by commercial enterprises, there are other denial movements that reject such chains of evidence. So lean z. For example, AIDS deniers also do thousands of epidemiological studies that prove that AIDS is caused by HIV.

Opponents of the theory of evolution also use different criteria for the acceptance of knowledge and have developed various strategies to increase the demands on scientific evidence for evolution. So they demand z. B. Experimental evidence for facts that simply cannot be proven by experiment. This includes, for example, the emergence of new species in mammals and birds, which reproduce only relatively slowly, so that no evidence is possible in practice due to the long periods required for this. However, they reject experimental evidence for the emergence of new species in species with short reproductive cycles and claim e.g. B. that experimentally newly created species of fruit flies are not new species at all. Furthermore, they operate with terms such as B. "Creature", which excludes the evolutionary emergence of new species per se.

In the 1920s and 1930s, opponents of the theory of relativity argued that the theory of relativity was not "descriptive" enough. In Germany, for example, attempts were made to contrast the theory of relativity with the so-called German physics , which is clear and thus frees physics from complex mathematical models. At the same time, they demanded absolute certainty in terms of time and space, which is impossible since this is an empirical matter. Climate deniers, on the other hand, place enormous value on the possible sources of error in the chain of evidence for global warming, while taking arguments that seem to support their own view at face value. For example, they demand disproportionately exact temperature data for periods for which no exact thermometer measurements are (can) be available, and they reject complex mathematical models such as B. Climate models as a means of obtaining information. This resulted in a strong imbalance in the questioning of various positions.

Sociological characteristics

Threat to one's own worldview

The rejected knowledge often poses a threat to one's own worldview. For example, the theory of relativity was a challenge to common sense , while the theory of evolution is a threat to religious ideas, especially for evangelical Christians who interpret the Bible literally. Climate research, in turn, with its findings poses a threat to certain lifestyles and political views, especially for people who reject state intervention in the economy or lifestyles for reasons of climate protection .

Complexity of the rejected theory

Rejected theories are also often complex and difficult to understand. For example, both the theory of relativity and climate research are partly based on highly complex mathematical models, which makes them inaccessible and incomprehensible to laypeople. The theory of evolution and climate research also use a huge amount of data and theoretical evidence from a variety of different disciplines that are difficult for non-experts to understand. This makes the research fields easily vulnerable to science deniers who want to exploit the ignorance of laypeople for their own purposes.

Lack of competence

Many science deniers lack the competence to judge the knowledge they reject. The vast majority of the leading science deniers are "private researchers" without the necessary scientific background that is required to work in the respective specialist area at a reputable institution. Competent researchers, on the other hand, only very rarely become deniers of the state of research. Deniers of the theory of relativity had the most professional competence, among whom were even three Nobel Prize winners in physics, who were, however, only little recognized in the subject. Two of them ( Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark ) were isolated because they both represented outsider opinions and were staunch National Socialists, the third ( Charles Édouard Guillaume ) received the prize for research on nickel-steel alloys; his Nobel Prize was controversial from the start. In contrast, there are very few competent researchers among climate and evolution deniers. There are hardly any people with a scientific degree in a relevant subject among creationists; Those who claim to have “scientific expertise” to a large extent have degrees in natural sciences that are irrelevant to the theory of evolution or in engineering. The situation is similar among climate deniers. Even there, the majority of the leading opponents of climate research have no expertise in climate issues. Instead, scientists from various disciplines were specifically recruited who had good PR skills and were willing to contest the state of research.

However, the acceptance of climate science results among conservatives decreases with increasing level of education. Dan M. Kakan et al. a. assume that it is not really incompetence or a lack of education that cast doubt on scientific findings, but rather different interests or basic political attitudes.

Male dominance

Science denial is strongly male dominated. Only two women were found among relativity deniers, one of whom was married to a well-known denier and defended him in a separate publication after his death. Women are also rare among evolution and climate deniers. This is particularly noticeable among those who deny evolution, since a comparatively large number of women are active in biology. The most widespread denial of environmental science such as man-made climate change is among conservative white men. This is particularly true of climate deniers in the United States, among whom are overwhelmingly conservative, white men, regardless of whether scientists, media people, think tank members or politicians are being investigated. The explanation for this phenomenon is given that men may be more inclined than women to rate their supposed professional competence higher than the expertise of actual experts.

Inability to publish scientifically

Another characteristic is the fact that science deniers are practically hardly represented in the scientific literature. Both deniers of the theory of relativity, evolution deniers and climate deniers almost always fail due to the quality assurance measures of scientific journals, the so-called peer review , and can therefore hardly have publications in peer-reviewed specialist literature. This failure to meet scientific quality standards is in direct contradiction to the supposedly high quality standards that deniers attribute to their own claims. Science deniers therefore like to refer to the scientific peer review system as censoring their views.

Instead of peer-reviewed papers, climate deniers in particular, often with great support from industrial companies and think tanks, publish a large number of non-peer-reviewed publications for the public, for example books and reports, with the aim of presenting an “alternative” to peer-reviewed specialist literature. At least 90% of the books published by 2010 that denied climate change and played a key role in the attacks on climate research bypassed the peer review. In this way it is possible to ignore the current state of research and to publish scientifically long since refuted statements again and again without this being prevented by a quality control. In addition, according to an analysis of 141 English-language books published between 1972 and 2005 in 2008, in which the dangers of environmental problems are played down or denied, 92% of these books have links to conservative think tanks. 90% of them in turn had an environmentally skeptical agenda, which is primarily characterized by a denial of the seriousness of environmental problems and a rejection of the scientific findings on them.

Spread and believe in conspiracy theories

Car of a creationist who ridicules the theory of evolution as a "fairy tale for adults".

Belief in or use of conspiracy theories is also common . For example, the opponents of the theory of relativity were dominated by anti-Semites who argued that the theory of relativity was part of a Jewish conspiracy. Among other things, they attributed their inability to publish in scientific journals to the fact that the physics journals and physical societies were under Jewish influence. Evolutionary deniers often find themselves conspired by atheists or the devil. Climate deniers, on the other hand, have different ideas that there is a conspiracy by left forces, greedy climate researchers, left politicians or environmentalists. For example, climate deniers reinterpret the fact that climate researchers, scientific institutions and peer-reviewed journals agree on climate change as a conspiracy within climate research or accuse climate researchers of corruption .

AIDS deniers argue similarly: There, too, the claim is widespread that scientists hold on to scientific consensus for selfish motives because they personally benefit from it, e.g. B. through the acquisition of grants or prestige. In this way they can also represent professional authorities as participants in a large conspiracy. In some cases, the claim is made that there has long been a cure for AIDS, but that this is being kept secret by the pharmaceutical industry so that it can make high profits from the sale of antiretrovirals that have to be taken for a lifetime. Representatives of various denialist currents also linked their inability to publish in peer-reviewed journals to a conspiracy against them, on the basis of which they did not get the attention they deserve.

Calls directly to the public

Appeals and appeals directly to the public are also widespread , especially from activists who are unable to publish in the peer-reviewed specialist literature. Deniers of the theory of relativity addressed the general population in numerous brochures and leaflets in the 1920s and 1930s and also published many articles in the mass media. The most important medium in the USA was the Dearborn Independent , which was not only one of the largest public newspapers, but also had a strictly anti-Semitic orientation. Even today, evolution and climate deniers publish their theses mainly in books, brochures and on websites that are intended for the general public. This publishing in the mass media in turn creates a problem for science communication, since serious scientists who publish scientifically in specialist journals rarely write for mass media that are read by broad sections of the population; so the positions of the deniers are overrepresented there. Climate change deniers are strongly overrepresented, especially in the conservative media in Anglo-Saxon countries, especially in the USA, where they have a central role in disseminating climate denial arguments. Important media in this regard are and have been newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal , the New York Post and the Washington Times , magazines such as The Weekly Standard , The American Spectator and National Review, as well as various media from the News Corporation , which is owned by Rupert Murdoch . Together, these media act like an echo chamber in which the claims of climate deniers circulate endlessly and mutually reinforce each other.

Pretending to have a much larger scientific meaning

Another characteristic is the feigning of a much greater hold on positions in science than is actually the case. To this end, science deniers u. a. own institutes, hold their own conferences and sometimes even publish their own journals, which, however, do not have scientific purposes, but rather serve specifically for denial. An example of this is the Academy of Nations , which was founded in 1921 by deniers of the theory of relativity as a supposedly scientific organization. Creationists also found a large number of such apparently scientific organizations such as B. the Creation Research Society , the Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute .

Climate deniers, in turn, use a variety of front groups and astroturfing organizations, which were often founded specifically for denial. These aim to deny global warming as such, but also to undermine concrete legislation in the form of environmental and climate protection laws. Front groups were or are set up by industrial companies and trade associations to both disguise and shield their own activities in the denial of man-made climate change. Such organizations were set up both with and without the help of think tanks from the organized climate change denial movement . These front groups often give themselves euphemistic names to hide their real intentions. A popular technique here is so-called greenscamming , in which anti-environmental organizations pretend to be environmental organizations by choosing a name that sounds relevant. Examples are the Global Climate Coalition , the Alliance for Environment and Resources or the American Council on Science and Health .

Another method used is the use of public petitions or lists of signatures, which aim to suggest to the public that the theses expressed by the science deniers are firmly anchored in the scientific community. 1931 published z. B. Opponents of the theory of relativity published a pamphlet entitled 100 authors against Einstein . In 2001, the creationist Discovery Institute launched a petition entitled "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," which was signed mostly by evangelicals, while few biologists signed. Climate deniers also often use such petitions, including the Leipzig Declaration and the Oregon Petition . They are often cited as arguments that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. In science, however, these declarations are viewed as disinformation campaigns by climate deniers, the aim of which is to confuse the public with regard to the state of research on man-made climate change and the technical consensus that prevails there. AIDS deniers also used this strategy to suggest with a list of signatures that a growing number of scientists do not believe in a connection between the HIV virus and AIDS, and thus to dispel doubts about the scientific consensus backed by thousands of studies.

In all cases the signatories were largely unfamiliar with the subject. For example, the Oregon petition claims that 31,000 scientists disagree with the consensus view. In fact, not even one percent of the signatories had expertise in climate issues. Although it originated in 1999, the Oregon petition is repeatedly picked up by online platforms and then widely disseminated via social media . For example , a fake news article from YourNewsWire.com that appeared in September 2016, citing the Oregon petition as evidence that man-made climate change was a hoax, was shared over 600,000 times on Facebook within six months . The petition also serves as an example of other similar actions.

Attacks on serious scientists

The repertoire of the science deniers also includes sharp attacks on real scientists. Such attacks are known from deniers of the theory of relativity, evolution deniers and climate deniers. In the interwar years, a large number of those who denied the theory of relativity, many of whom vehemently attacked Einstein, were anti-Semitic. Numerous scientists who defend the theory of evolution or climate research against science deniers are also sharply attacked and repeatedly victims of persecution and threats. In climate research, researchers who have made significant research contributions are also attacked. The aim of these personal attacks on climate researchers is to discredit climate research itself.

Climate researchers who are particularly strongly attacked are z. B. the IPCC lead authors Benjamin Santer and Michael E. Mann . Santer was accused of deliberate dishonesty, corruption and manipulation of data in a campaign launched by the fossil fuel industry in 1995, after the IPCC had stated in its Second Assessment Report that the human influence on the climate was already "recognizable"; He was also accused of deliberately deceiving the public and politicians. After the publication of the so-called hockey stick diagram , which showed a sharp rise in temperatures in the 20th century and which was finally also prominently reproduced in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC , a large-scale, according to Stefan Rahmstorf "probably unique [n "Campaign" tries to discredit. Among other things, he received a letter with white powder sent during the height of the anthrax letter series in the USA .

Strong links to politics

Another characteristic is often links to politics. Deniers of the theory of relativity were often anti-Semitically motivated in the 1920s and 1930s, while links to right-wing currents can now be seen in the USA. For example, the conservative encyclopedia Conservapedia lists articles in which it attacks the theory of relativity, but also the theory of evolution and climate research. The denial of evolution is primarily shaped by a Christian right that seeks to defend its fundamentalist beliefs in this way. The climate change denial is primarily driven by a business-oriented right that rejects state intervention in the market. The interests of commercial enterprises that are active in the extraction and processing of fossil energies , such as ExxonMobil or Koch Industries , as well as associations of these industries , played and still play a major role in the development and financing of climate change denial . In the meantime, there is a so-called “organized climate denial scene” made up of conservative think tanks , various political front groups and a large number of lay bloggers . In addition, there are lay people who claim to be experts, some scientists, PR companies , astroturfing groups, conservative media and politicians. What they have in common, above all, is their rejection of state regulation through climate protection measures .

Explanatory approaches

There are various approaches in science that attempt to explain science denial. These can be roughly divided into psychological and sociological factors as well as values ​​and worldviews; there is also targeted denial by the so-called “denial machine” of industrial actors.

One psychological approach seeks to explain science denial as a psychological defense mechanism , often in response to a problem that is viewed as insoluble. Attempts have been made to interpret it as a self-deceitful reaction to an existential and persistent predicament or as a cognitive dissonance . There is experimental evidence that cognitive dissonance contributes to science denial.

One sociological approach is that people primarily accept information from a leader they trust, as the social costs of rejecting the dominant worldviews and views within certain social groups can be high. Other factors may include a lack of scientific ability or the fact that the rejected scientific knowledge is worrying or unpleasant.

Worldviews also seem to play an important role. A large number of studies indicate that climate change denial is strongly correlated with factors such as an individualistic worldview , anthropocentrism , advocacy of property rights, belief in capitalism or free-market neoliberalism, as well as with conservative core beliefs and evangelicalism . The greatest informative value emerged when several of these value-related factors were taken into account.

In addition, there are numerous studies that have examined the activities of the so-called denial machine in order to find out how this has caused the population and politicians to deny knowledge. Both conservative ideology and self-interest by industrial companies or a combination of both factors were recognized as the central motivation for this deliberately fomented denial, which was and is practiced primarily in North America by political, economic and religious organizations. Another negative effect was that disinformation campaigns of such groups were not treated as such by many media, but were presented as being equivalent to scientific information due to a wrong balance .

Historical examples

Edmund Husserl explained in a book from 1929 that Plato is said to have defended himself against a "universal scientific denial of sophistic skepticism" even in antiquity . In response to the general rejection of science itself, he built it on logic.

The example of Ignaz Semmelweis from the 19th century, whose scientific discovery was widely rejected, gave the Semmelweis reflex its name . He showed that hygiene in the medical business prevents disease, and after his clumsy attempts to convince him, he died in the madhouse.

The biophysicist Aharon Katzir-Katchalsky saw in 1971 that in the hippie movement, for example, it was propagated that LSD would undo the “ difference between subject and object ”, a fight against science that would deny the Freudian reality principle .

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Anna Durnová: The 'March for Science' as the scene of the socio-political polarization between the elite and the people: an interpretative contribution to the analysis of post-truth . In: Journal of Political Science . tape 29 , no. 2 , 2019, p. 345-360 , doi : 10.1007 / s41358-019-00186-3 .
  2. ↑ On denialism . Information ethics. Retrieved January 19, 2018.
  3. ↑ Belief in Discworld. Flachwitz . In: Spiegel-Online , August 13, 2017. Retrieved September 22, 2017.
  4. ↑ The Best New Words of 2017 . In: Aargauer Zeitung , December 27, 2017, accessed on January 19, 2018.
  5. ↑ New strategy against disinformation about climate change: use a logical dissecting knife . In: Klimafakten , July 3, 2018. Retrieved July 3, 2018.
  6. ↑ a b Stephan Lewandowsky u. a .: NASA Faked the Moon Landing — Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science . In: Psychological Science . tape 24 , no. 5 , 2013, p. 622-633 , doi : 10.1177 / 0956797612457686 .
  7. ^ Matthew H. Slater et al .: Denialism as Applied Skepticism: Philosophical and Empirical Considerations . In: Knowledge . 2018, doi : 10.1007 / s10670-018-0054-0 .
  8. ↑ See Emanuela Fronza: Memory and Punishment. Historical Denialism, Free Speech and the Limits of Criminal Law . The Hague 2018, p. 6.
  9. ^ Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47, here: p. 40 , doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
  10. ↑ a b c Annette Peters et al .: Promoting Clean Air: Combating “Fake News” and “Air Pollution Denial” . In: The Lancet Respiratory Medicine . tape 7 , no. 8 , 2019, pp. P650-652 , doi : 10.1016 / S2213-2600 (19) 30182-1 .
  11. ^ Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer: Motivated Rejection of Science . In: Current Directions in Psychological Science . tape 25 , no. 4 , 2016, p. 217-222 , doi : 10.1177 / 0963721416654436 .
  12. ↑ a b James C. Russell, Tim M Blackburn: The Rise of Invasive Species Denialism . In: Trends in Ecology & Evolution . tape 32 , no. 1 , 2017, p. 3–6 , doi : 10.1016 / j.tree.2016.10.012 .
  13. ↑ Martin McKee et al .: Are Populist Leaders Creating the Conditions for the Spread of COVID-19? In: International Journal of Health Policy and Management . 2020, doi : 10.34172 / ijhpm.2020.124 .
  14. ^ Francisco Ortega, Michael Orsini: Governing COVID-19 without government in Brazil: Ignorance, neoliberal authoritarianism, and the collapse of public health leadership . In: Global Public Health . 2020, doi : 10.1080 / 17441692.2020.1795223 .
  15. ↑ a b c d e f g h Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al. : Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990-2015 . In: Journal of Cleaner Production . tape 167 , 2017, p. 229–241, here: p. 237 , doi : 10.1016 / j.jclepro.2017.08.066 .
  16. ↑ a b c d e f g Tara C. Smith, Steven P. Novella: HIV Denial in the Internet Era . In: PLOS Medicine . tape 4 , no. 8 , 2007, p. 1312-1316 , doi : 10.1371 / journal.pmed.0040256.g001 .
  17. ↑ a b See Wendee Holtcamp: Flavors of Uncertainty: The Difference between Denial and Debate . In: Environmental Health Perspectives . tape 120 , no. 8 , 2012, p. a314-a319 , doi : 10.1289 / ehp.120-a314 .
  18. ↑ a b c d e Pascal Diethelm, Martin McKee: Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? In: European Journal of Public Health . tape 19 , no. 1 , 2009, p. 2-4 , doi : 10.1093 / eurpub / ckn139 .
  19. ^ Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47, here: p. 39 , doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 . ; see. also Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : The Machiavellis of Science. Weinheim 2014.
  20. ↑ a b Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al .: Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990-2015 . In: Journal of Cleaner Production . tape 167 , 2017, p. 229–241, here: p. 235 , doi : 10.1016 / j.jclepro.2017.08.066 .
  21. ^ Riley E. Dunlap, Peter J. Jacques: Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection . In: American Behavioral Scientist . tape 57 , no. 6 , 2013, p. 699-731, here: p. 699 , doi : 10.1177 / 0002764213477096 .
  22. ↑ Stephan Lewandowsky et al. a .: NASA Faked the Moon Landing — Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science . In: Psychological Science . tape 24 , no. 5 , 2013, p. 622-633, here: p. 623 , doi : 10.1177 / 0956797612457686 .
  23. ↑ Alan McLintic: The motivation behind science denial . In: The New Zealand Medical Journal . tape 132 , no. 1504 , 2019, pp. 88–94, here: p. 88 .
  24. ↑ Quoted from: Pascal Diethelm, Martin McKee : Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? In: European Journal of Public Health . tape 19 , no. 1 , 2009, p. 2-4 , doi : 10.1093 / eurpub / ckn139 .
  25. ↑ a b Philipp Schmid, Cornelia Betsch : Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions . In: Nature Human Behavior . 2019, doi : 10.1038 / s41562-019-0632-4 .
  26. ↑ Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al .: Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990-2015 . In: Journal of Cleaner Production . tape 167 , 2017, p. 229-241 , doi : 10.1016 / j.jclepro.2017.08.066 .
  27. ^ Riley E. Dunlap: Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction . In: American Behavioral Scientist . tape 57 , no. 6 , 2013, p. 691-698 , doi : 10.1177 / 0002764213477097 .
  28. ^ Haydn Washington, John Cook : Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, p. 1 f.
  29. ↑ Jeremy Kemp et al .: Skeptics and deniers of climate change not to be confused . In: Nature . No. 464 , 2010, p. 673 , doi : 10.1038 / 464673a .
  30. ↑ James Lawrence Powell: The Inquisition of Climate Science. New York 2012, p. 4.
  31. ↑ Michael E. Mann , Tom Toles: The madhouse effect. How climate change denial threatens our planet, destroys our politics and drives us insane. Erlangen 2018, p. 1f; Ibid. XIX f.
  32. ↑ Michael E. Mann , Tom Toles: The madhouse effect. How climate change denial threatens our planet, destroys our politics and drives us insane . Erlangen 2018, p. 85.
  33. ^ A b c Nicoli Nattrass: The art of medicine. How bad ideas gain social traction . In: The Lancet . tape 380 , 2012, p. 332 f ., doi : 10.1016 / S0140-6736 (12) 61238-0 .
  34. ↑ See Naomi Oreskes : Foreword. In: Haydn Washington, John Cook : Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, pp. XIII f.
  35. ↑ a b c d e f g h Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al .: Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990-2015 . In: Journal of Cleaner Production . tape 167 , 2017, p. 229–241, here: p. 236 , doi : 10.1016 / j.jclepro.2017.08.066 .
  36. ↑ Bruce W. Jentleson: Global Governance, the United Nations, and the Challenge of Trumping Trump . In: Global Governance . tape 23 , 2017, p. 143-149 , doi : 10.1163 / 19426720-02302001 .
  37. ^ Leif Fredrickson: History of US Presidential Assaults on Modern Environmental Health Protection . In: American Journal of Public Health . tape 108 , S2, 2018, pp. S95 – S103 , doi : 10.2105 / AJPH.2018.304396 .
  38. ^ Lindsey Dillon et al .: The Environmental Protection Agency in the Early Trump Administration: Prelude to Regulatory Capture . In: American Journal of Public Health . tape 108 , S2, 2018, pp. S89 – S94 , doi : 10.2105 / AJPH.2018.304360 .
  39. ↑ Michael E. Mann , Tom Toles: The madhouse effect. How climate change denial threatens our planet, destroys our politics and drives us insane . Erlangen 2018, pp. 77-80.
  40. ↑ See Michael E. Mann , Tom Toles: Der Tollhausffekt. How climate change denial threatens our planet, destroys our politics and drives us insane . Erlangen 2018, p. 77f; Central standard work: Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : The Machiavellis of Science. Weinheim 2014.
  41. ↑ David Michaels : Manufactured Uncertainty. Protecting Public Health in the Age of Contested Science and Product Defense . In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences . tape 1076 , 2006, pp. 149–162 , doi : 10.1196 / annals.1371.058 . ; See also Robert Bulle: Denialism: organized opposition to climate change action in the United States , in: David Konisky (Hrsg.), Handbook of Enviromental Policy . Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton MA. 2020, 328-341, p. 333.
  42. ↑ a b c d Robert Bulle: Denialism: organized opposition to climate change action in the United States. In: David Konisky (Ed.), Handbook of Enviromental Policy . Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton MA. 2020, pp. 328–341, here: pp. 332f.
  43. ^ A b c Andrew Dessler: Introduction to Modern Climate Change . Cambridge University Press 2015, p. 215.
  44. ↑ James Hoggan, Richard Littlemore: Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming . Greystone Books 2009, p. 35.
  45. ↑ Jennifer S Mindell et al. : All in this together: the corporate capture of public health . In: BMJ . tape 345 , 2012, doi : 10.1136 / bmj.e8082 .
  46. ^ Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47 , doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
  47. ↑ a b Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47, here: p. 40 , doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
  48. ↑ Iselin Medhaug et al. a .: Reconciling controversies about the 'global warming hiatus' . In: Nature . tape 545 , 2017, p. 41–47 , doi : 10.1038 / nature22315 .
  49. ↑ James Lawrence Powell: The Inquisition of Climate Science . New York 2012, p. 172.
  50. ^ Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47, here: p. 41 , doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
  51. ↑ a b c d e Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47, here: p. 41 f ., doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
  52. ^ Justin Farrell et al .: Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation . In: Nature Climate Change . tape 9 , 2019, pp. 191-195 , doi : 10.1038 / s41558-018-0368-6 .
  53. ^ Liisa Antilla: Climate of skepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change . In: Global Environmental Change . tape 15 , 2005, pp. 338–352, here: p. 340 , doi : 10.1016 / j.gloenvcha.2005.08.003 .
  54. ^ A b c Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 300-332, here: pp. 308 f.
  55. ↑ See also Maxwell T. Boykoff, Jules M. Boykoff: Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press . In: Global Environmental Change . tape 14 , 2004, p. 125–136 , doi : 10.1016 / j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001 .
  56. ^ William C. Tucker: Deceitful Tongues: Is Climate Change Denial A Crime? In: Ecology Law Quarterly . tape 39 , 2012, p. 831-892, here: p. 891 , doi : 10.15779 / Z38V55M .
  57. ^ Nicoli Nattrass, Seth C. Kalichman : The Politics and Psychology of AIDS Denialism. In: Poul Rohleder et al. (Ed.): HIV / AIDS in South Africa 25 Years On. Psychosocial Perspectives . Springer, New York / Dordrecht / Heidelberg / London 2009, pp. 123-134, here pp. 125 f., 132.
  58. ↑ a b c d e f Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47, here: p. 42 f ., Doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
  59. ↑ Cornelia Betsch: Advocating for vaccination in a climate of science denial . In: Nature Microbiology . tape 2 , 2017, doi : 10.1038 / nmicrobiol.2017.106 .
  60. ^ Elisa K. Ong, Stanton A. Glantz: Constructing “Sound Science” and “Good Epidemiology”: Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms . In: American Journal of Public Health . tape 91 , no. 11 , 2001, p. 1749–1757 , doi : 10.2105 / AJPH.91.11.1749 .
  61. ↑ a b c d e Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47, here: p. 43 , doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
  62. ↑ Lawrence C. Hamilton: Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. In: Climatic Change, Volume 104 (2010), Issue 2, pp. 231–242.
  63. ^ Dan M. Kahan: The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. In: Nature Climate Change , Volume 2 (2012), pp. 732-735.
  64. ↑ Dan M. Kahan et al. a .: Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government. In: Behavioral Public Policy, Vol. 1, pp. 54–86.
  65. ↑ Aaron M. McCright, Riley E. Dunlap: Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States . In: Global Environmental Change . tape 21 , 2011, p. 1163–1172 , doi : 10.1016 / j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003 .
  66. ^ Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47, here p. 43 f , doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
  67. ↑ Arturo Casadevall, Ferric C. Fang: Is Peer Review Censorship? In: Infection and Immunity . tape 77 , no. 4 , 2009, p. 1273-1274 , doi : 10.1128 / IAI.00018-09 .
  68. ^ Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 300–332, here p. 308.
  69. ^ Riley E. Dunlap, Peter J. Jacques: Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection . In: American Behavioral Scientist . tape 57 , no. 6 , 2013, p. 699-731 , doi : 10.1177 / 0002764213477096 .
  70. ^ Peter J. Jacques et al .: The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism . In: Environmental Politics . tape 17 , no. 3 , 2008, p. 349-385 , doi : 10.1080 / 09644010802055576 .
  71. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47, here p. 44 f ., Doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
  72. ↑ See G. Thomas Farmer, John Cook : Climate Change Science. A modern synthesis. Volume 1 - The Physical Climate. Dordrecht 2013, p. 454.
  73. ^ Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, pp. 316 f.
  74. ^ Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 300–332, here p. 314 f.
  75. ^ Seth Heald: Climate Silence, Moral Disengagement, and Self-Efficacy: How Albert Bandura's Theories Inform Our Climate-Change Predicament . In: Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development . tape 59 , no. 6 , 2017, p. 4–15 , doi : 10.1080 / 00139157.2017.1374792 .
  76. ↑ See Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, pp. 72-75 (English).
  77. ^ A b John Cook et al .: Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence . In: PLOS ONE . tape 12 , no. 5 , 2017, doi : 10.1371 / journal.pone.0175799 .
  78. ↑ Michael Brüggemann : The media and the climate lie. False skepticism and real denial. In: Volker Lilienthal , Irene Neverla (ed.), "Lügenpresse": Anatomy of a political battle term . Cologne 2017, pp. 137–157, here pp. 141 f.
  79. ^ Spencer Weart: Global Warming. How skepticism became denial . In: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists . tape 67 , no. 1 , 2011, p. 41-50, here p. 46 f ., Doi : 10.1177 / 0096340210392966 .
  80. ↑ See Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : The Machiavellis of Science. Weinheim 2014, pp. XV – XX.
  81. ^ Stefan Rahmstorf : Foreword to the German edition. Doubt as an industrial product. In: Michael E. Mann , Tom Toles: The madhouse effect. How climate change denial threatens our planet, destroys our politics and drives us insane . Erlangen 2018, p. VII f.
  82. ^ Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 300-332, here pp. 310 f.
  83. ^ Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144–160, here p. 144.
  84. ↑ Edmund Husserl: Formal and transcendental logic. Attempt a critique of logical reason . In: Yearbook for Philosophy and Phenomenological Research . Volume 10. Max Niemeyer, Halle an der Saale 1929, urn : nbn: de: bsz: 25-opus-60050 , p. 1f.
  85. ↑ Jutta von Campenhausen: To convey science: A guide for scientists . 2014, chap. 3 Don't be such a scientist! , doi: 10.1007 / 978-3-531-19361-8_3 , 3.1 How to reach people , p. 29 ( books.google.com ).
  86. ^ Dennis WC Liu: Science Denial and the Science Classroom . In: American Society for Cell Biology (Ed.): CBE — Life Sciences Education . Volume 11, doi: 10.1187 / cbe.12-03-0029 , No. 2, p. 133.
  87. ^ David L. Levine: Science Denialism in the 21st Century . In: scientificamerican.com . July 19, 2018, Retrieved May 9, 2020.
  88. ↑ Aharon Katzir-Katchalsky: The Temptation of Science . In: The time . No. 45/1971. November 5, 1971. Retrieved March 25, 2020.