[Vision2020] Fwd: Report on denial you may like

[Ted Moffett]

Sent "Off List" by a Vision2020 reader no doubt in the context of climate
science discussions on Vision2020:

http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.000-living-in-denial-when-a-sceptic-isnt-a-sceptic.html
-----------------------------------------
 Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

   - 18 May 2010 by *Michael
Shermer*<http://www.newscientist.com/search?rbauthors=Michael+Shermer>
   - Magazine issue 2760 <http://www.newscientist.com/issue/2760>. *Subscribe
   and save* <http://www.newscientist.com/subscribe?promcode=nsarttop>

  WHAT is the difference between a sceptic and a denier? When I call myself
a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of
claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one,
carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the
facts wherever they lead.

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the
data employing "confirmation bias" - the tendency to look for and find
confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the
rest.

Scepticism is integral to the scientific process, because most claims turn
out to be false. Weeding out the few kernels of wheat from the large pile of
chaff requires extensive observation, careful experimentation and cautious
inference. Science is scepticism and good scientists are sceptical.

Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of
the evidence for it - sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is
typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to
the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons
for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief
survives intact.
  Denial is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the
belief takes precedence over evidence

Denial is today most often associated with climate science, but it is also
encountered elsewhere. For example, there are those who do not believe that
HIV causes AIDS. Others say that the Holocaust did not happen, or reject the
overwhelming evidence for evolution. All merit the moniker "denier", because
no matter how much evidence is laid out before them they continue to deny
the claim.

Though the distinction between scepticism and denial is clear enough in
principle, keeping them apart in the real world can be tricky. It has, for
example, become fashionable in some circles for anyone who dares to
challenge the climate science "consensus" to be tarred as a denier and
heaved into a vat of feathers. Do you believe in global warming? Answer with
anything but an unequivocal yes and you risk being written off as a climate
denier, in the same bag as Holocaust and evolution naysayers.

Yet casting questions like these as a matter of belief is nonsensical.
Either the Earth is getting warmer or it is not, regardless of how many
believe it is or is not. When I say "I believe in evolution" or "I believe
in the big bang", this is something different from when I say, "I believe in
a flat tax" or "I believe in liberal democracy".

Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters
can, in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right
form of taxation or government cannot be answered with more data and better
theory. They are ideological positions that are established by subjective
debate. Liberals committed to one vision of society will marshal evidence to
support their political beliefs, while conservatives buttress their own
world view. Both sides are sceptical of each other's position, both deny
information that contradicts their own views, and in most cases disputes are
resolved not through experiment and hypothesis testing but through
democratic election.

What sometimes happens is that people confuse these two types of questions -
scientific and ideological. Sometimes the confusion is deliberate. Denial is
one outcome. Thus, one practical way to distinguish between a sceptic and a
denier is the extent to which they are willing to update their positions in
response to new information. Sceptics change their minds. Deniers just keep
on denying.

*Read more:* *Special report: Living in
denial*<http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial>
------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100525/d98e2f5b/attachment.html