PRI The World ran a 10 minute feature today on the wisdom of using the term "denier" in the debate over climate change and other science policy controversies.
Correspondent Jason Margolis does a terrific job in synthesizing research and comments from various experts on why the use of the label by science advocates is likely to be a major blunder. My comments come at about 7 minutes and 15 seconds into the archived audio.
What do readers think? Convinced yet that "denier" should be dropped from our lexicon?
Environment
Politics
Comments
I chanced to hear this segment, and I was (perhaps stupidly) unaware of the holocaust connotation of the term "denier." The segment was persuasive that the term is counter-productive.
In my experience, it's never a good idea to criticize the opposition on an issue using loaded terms like denier. Doing so tends to harden opposition and make it into a personal crusade.
Posted by: Mark Powell | November 21, 2008 8:38 PM
No.
Posted by: Orac | November 21, 2008 8:49 PM
No.
Posted by: Kevin | November 21, 2008 10:51 PM
It was a very good report, except for that interview with the guy who wanted to soft-pedal the truth. Yes, let's by all means tiptoe around the facts, the consequences, and the role of those who refuse to connect the dots. We'll be gentler and more sensitive and they'll come over to our side.
How about refuseniks? Or "Nattering Nabobs Of Naysaying"? Or just "Denier", which is what they are, whether they like it or not. There are Holocaust deniers, tire-pressure deniers, and global warming deniers. In terms of eventual total loss of life and property, the latter may end up doing more damage than the former.
Posted by: george.wiman | November 22, 2008 12:05 AM
No.
Posted by: Patrick | November 22, 2008 12:48 AM
What term should we use instead? They certainly aren't legitimately skeptics. The only term that I would use that is less loaded would be contrarian. Obviously these people who don't believe global warming is real or a problem wouldn't like any label we put on them.
Posted by: CLM | November 22, 2008 1:27 AM
No.
Why not suggest an alternative term, Matthew, if you think denier is loaded?
I am open to the idea of improving our descriptive language but I am also of the opinion that we are dealing with a specific tactic here - the rejection of the scientific method as a way of answering questions about the natural world. Its the one thread that links anti-vaccinationers, anti-global warmers, anti-evolutionists, conspiracy theorists etc.
You seem to be suggesting that you disagree with the idea that the denialist mindset actually exists at all.
If that is the case you might try putting forward a better case than simply telling us to shut up.
Posted by: Sigmund | November 22, 2008 3:04 AM
Calling them deniers does not push them into a corner. They cornered themselves first: calling them on it is correct.
If somebody is cheating, calling them on it is correct.
If someone is arguing in bad faith, calling them on it is correct.
Those who choose to hide from the truth are wrong, period. They are no different than little kids who do wrong and are troubled by cognitive dissonance: they don't want to feel like they are associated with mistakes. Well, boo-hoo for their feelings, which are of no consequence to the rest of us. It is their actions that matter. If what you do makes you feel bad, then stop doing it.
And, yes, we all do deny to one extent or another. For example, look at how we try to pretend away the fact that the Earth cannot support an ever-increasing human population. Our number has more than doubled in my lifetime, and it shows no sign of slowing. Nobody wants to be associated with that problem, but anyone with kids is part of the problem. That's a fact, a sad fact, but undeniable. (Myself? I have no kids to speak of, and none to keep quiet about.)
Posted by: CRM-114 | November 22, 2008 7:30 AM
The connection to the holocaust was debated and put to bed long ago. Not convinced. Good piece, though.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | November 22, 2008 8:51 AM
I chanced to hear this segment, and I was (perhaps stupidly) unaware of the holocaust connotation of the term "denier."
I wasn't either. I'm guessing a good percentage of "deniers" aren't either. If the radio piece could confirm that 1) a large percentage of AGW deniers feel they're being compared to holocaust deniers and then 2) that causing them to feel that way is truly counterproductive, it might be convincing.
Posted by: ngong | November 22, 2008 8:58 AM
George: "refuseniks" has Cold War connotations of people unjustly boxed into their current position. I strongly recommend against its use as an alternative to "deniers".
A few other commenters here seemed to have missed the point. Perhaps they're "point deniers". There are people who could be convinced out of their denial of climate change, but calling them names they associate with Nazi sympathizers makes them much harder to convince.
Posted by: falterer | November 22, 2008 11:24 AM
Denial existed before the holocaust, and marks a set of responses and rhetorical/psychological mechanisms. I'm happy with the term crank, though, if it hurts their feelings less. But it's all nonsense, they want equal standing on the grounds they want it, without basis. Tough, it won't happen in science, and if it happens in politics, we should use the label neo-Lysenkoism, or state-sponsored idiocy.
Posted by: stewart | November 22, 2008 11:44 AM
Dr Nisbet, I am third-ing Sigmund's and CLM's request--please, if you think this is a bad word, suggest a different one. It doesn't take a whole lot of brainpower or courage to say that someone else is wrong. It is far braver and requires more smarts to propose an alternate that you believe would be more successful.
I call Godwin on the Holocaust association aspect. Their bottom line is that they aren't interested in reasoning together or being helpful.
Posted by: Lora | November 22, 2008 2:12 PM
Denialist is an excellent alternative term which I have argued from the beginning. But denial is also appropriate, because it simply is what it is. We were initially criticized when starting denialism blog simply because "denialism" contains "denial" which is the root of "denier" yada yada. But most people recognized that holocaust denial hasn't ruled out the use of the word denial period or any derivation thereof.
As far as it redirecting debate - why are you debating denialists in the first place? These people are not worth debating. Who do they quote that is offended by this term? Timothy Ball? They're crooks! They're not honest brokers in debate! You've fallen for their tactics to distract from the fact they have no facts or science on which to debate, so they try to deflect attacks on their bogus ideology to this false comparison with holocaust deniers. Don't buy into this nonsense, you're doing their work for them. It's remarkable how you have repeatedly made this error.
Finally, as usual, I have to ask, what proof do you have that the tactics of outing denialism for what it is is ineffective? The only evidence I've seen of this so far is that Timothy Ball is upset. To which I say, awesome! We've gotten under their skin. Maybe now they'll have to resort to using honest tactics in debate, and then maybe, shock, they'll see they don't have an honest debate with the science in this case.
You not in the title that after hearing this one should never use denier again. I am, if anything, convinced of the opposite. The only people who seem to be upset are people who are beyond the reaches of reason in the first place. Show us some data that the tactic of confronting denial directly is harmful and I'll change my mind. So far all we have is your opinion, and that of Timothy Ball. Neither of which I care for.
Posted by: MarkH | November 22, 2008 9:43 PM
"Denier" and "denialism" are too divisive? I wonder where this idea came from?
Observe the overheated reaction to the film An Inconvenient Truth -- suffice to say the oil companies and the hacks they fund hated it. Read the transcript (http://forumpolitics.com/blogs/2007/03/17/an-inconvient-truth-transcript/) and/or watch it for yourself, and notice that the scare-words "denier" and "denialism" appear a grand total of ZERO times. "Anti-science" is uttered a grand total of ZERO times.
The word "denier" makes people think they're being accused of Nazi sympathies? Who says? And you believe them? Why?
Nonsense.
Posted by: Dale | November 22, 2008 11:40 PM
Sigmund wrote:
I agree that this rejection is the basic problem; I suggest that a suitable term, then, would be "rejector" or "rejectionist." These terms don't have the unintended connotations of "denier" or "refusenik." What do you think? Simply nixing one term isn't particularly helpful; there ought to be some positive suggestions for alternatives.
Posted by: James F | November 23, 2008 6:16 AM
Dear Commenters: I'm on board with Stewart, and have been convinced that professional, institutional denial is a very good description of the expensive propaganda that has been financed by the conservative think tanks for the past 20 years or so. I actually won over a conservative denier by pointing out that the position of "global warming is a hoax" derives pretty much from the province of Exxon, CPhillips, the coal companies, AEI and other groups that have a huge vested interest in influencing public opinion on this issue.
Posted by: Don | November 23, 2008 11:37 AM
No.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 23, 2008 12:16 PM
I wonder if those of you (which seems to be many you) who insist on terms like "denier" are clear on who you are talking to when you use the term. The person you are calling names certainly doesn't care; indeed, you're just as likely to give them material with which to paint science as absolutist and uncaring.
The real audience we need to think about is those people who are observing the debate from the sideline who may use a range of heuristics or schema (and not necessarily full arguments) to decide whom they support. If your side gets pegged as ideologues, I would expect your odds of support dimninsh substantially.
The point is to use the opportunities created by public forums to speak PAST the ideologues towards the people with whom you truly want to communicate; the people who have not yet staked a position.
Ignore the bait. Think about your audience. Craft a message that appeals to the broad middle. Or, of course, you could just yell at each other.
Posted by: Besley | November 23, 2008 1:08 PM
We are fighting for the middle. The point isn't to call the people who are duped by these tactics names, the point is to point out the falsity of the denialist arguments. Positive arguments only go so far. At some point you have to address the anti-science propagandists who successfully extend debate ad nauseum using the tactics of denialism.
This is an example of something we've been talking about at denialism from the beginning. The debate being had is fake. You have one side that is using science and facts and information, and another side that are simply not honest brokers in the debate. Positive arguments only go so far against such an opponent. At some point you have to address the fact that they are not actually debating but just being obstructionist, obtuse, dishonest and downright crooked. You then have to point out how the tactics of such "debaters" are dishonest. We happen to think that describing the common tactics to all these movements has been helpful (conspiracy, cherry-picking, false experts, impossible expectations, logical fallacy), and that denialism is a good description for using such tactics to falsely extend debate.
Posted by: MarkH | November 24, 2008 11:33 AM
No.
@Besley: I do think about my audience when I call denialists what they are. Most people don't want to be mocked as ignoramuses. By pointing and laughing (and having the scientific goods to back up our disdain), we convince many (though certainly not all) that they really don't want to side with denialists (i.e., with the uninformed who can't reason their way out of a paper bag).
Posted by: Physicalist | November 24, 2008 6:00 PM
Besley "Craft a message that appeals to the broad middle."
There is no "middle". There are people who have an opinion on certain matters and there are others who don't. Some opinions have a rational basis, other don't.
Of course in order to be effective, the message must be framed differently to different audiences. On limited occasions, it might even be wise for a scientist to hide his/her contempt for pseudoscience. Personally, however, I prefer people to speak out their mind.
However, I understand that Nisbet is not asking just to limit the use of a common word. He is asking scientists to scrap its use altogether, in all kind of communication. What's next? Is the word "pseudoscience" too loaded? After all, nobody likes to be called pseudoscientific.
Posted by: Matti K. | November 25, 2008 4:21 AM
No.
Posted by: Marc | November 25, 2008 10:04 AM
Matt still thinks any of these people are interested in--or capable of--good-faith debate based on empirical facts. If they were, they wouldn't say the WTC was brought down by the Mossad or that environmentalists banned DDT to kill brown people. Why NOT call them deniers? How are they affirming any of the principles of scientific investigation and discussion, not to mention peer review? They are not affirming, they are denying.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I like calling them "conspiracy kooks" as much as the next guy, and I do so early and often. But you can have my word "denialist" when you take it out of my cold dead mouth.
Posted by: TTT | November 25, 2008 10:46 AM
No.
Posted by: Janothar | November 25, 2008 12:16 PM
Apropos my previous comment. I have discussed this sort of material with people outside of academics and found them receptive to the notion that lots and lots of effort has been made to confuse the public on these issues.
Jacques, P. J.*, Dunlap, R. E. & Freeman, M.
The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and
environmental skepticism. Environmental Politics Vol. 17, No. 3, June 2008, 349�385
Posted by: Don | November 26, 2008 10:20 AM
This may sound cliched but that detract from its truth in my opinion. Using words that puts each side of a debate into neat little categories might be fun, like in a zoo. "Ooh. Look at that little denialist in his little box." But it doesn't help bridge gaps. When I manage to get through to people who believe in pseudoscience or the paranormal, it's not by emphasizing how we differ but what we have in common. I'll agree it's hard with the most far out extremists and maybe nothing can bring those people back, but when you're talking to your old-fashioned dad who think that climate change isn't happening, it's not constructive to call him a denialist. Trust me on that one.
Posted by: Jeremy | November 26, 2008 5:28 PM