Why denialists ultimately fail

I recently heard this put into the terminology of scientific philosophy that real science is explanatory and the explanatory value of a given hypothesis or theory is what makes it real science. Creationism is an example of a hypothesis that had it's day in the sun and was supplanted, thoroughly, by a superior explanatory hypothesis.

Denialism, for instance global warming denial, fails this test and is ultimately non-explanatory. Nothing is offered to explain the data that is presented, rather it serves only to nit-pick, tear down, and dishonestly caricature science rather than present a viable alternative hypothesis. Real scientific debates occur between group who have equivalent, or near-equivalent explanations of the data. The ones who win are the ones who's explanations do a better job describing the world, the physical system, the biological problem, etc. and allow us to create new tools, new technologies, and new solutions to problems. Denialism helps solve no problems, helps explain no systems. It is just noise.

Denialism may be "noise" but in our over-information-saturated world, that noise is becomming harder for people to filter out. Compounding the problem is that we, as a society, have come to value tests scores and graduation rates (production metrics) over a real ability to critically analyze information and draw independent conclusions (quality metrics). So our education production industry tilts that way, and as a result we end up with people who can't confront the deniers because they lack the intellectual skills to do so.

Those of use who by hook, crook, or just plain luck were educated to approach the world critically thus have a greater burden. We have no choice but to stand up to these folks and pick them apart just as they do us. When they call, for instance, for more study and more data, ask them why. That question is one they have trouble answering, since thier demand for more study is really a delaying tactic.

I would also look for the real agenda that underlies denial. In most cases, Tobacco and climate change included, denial is really about preventing regulation and/or litigation that creates economic responsibility and assigns economic costs to choices made previously. Power companies want climate change denied so they don't face additional Clean Air Act costs, and so no one can sue them for polluting and causing global warming. Tobacco companies denied smokings' link to health because they feared litigation (though most of them seem to have weathered the storm and remianed profitable, which brings the claim of economic ruin into doubt). And some denial practitioners are just anti-government libertarians who have no interest in doing anything for anybody else. If you call them on these agendas, and "out" them on the real reasons for their denial, it becomes harder for them to fight back by impuning the science.

Mark - I'm pasting a copy of a comment I just left on your "history of denialism - Part III" since it's about the point you focus on in the present post.

re your point (2), "The goal of denialists is not to propose an alternative theory that is explanatory and useful, but to create controversy and doubt where it does not exist."

You need to tread carefully here, since it is perfectly legitimate to criticize an accepted theory without proposing an alternative. One can challenge the data, its interpretation, the soundness of inferences, etc., and also draw attention to anomlies -- none of which requires having an alternative account in hand. The history of science is full of examples illustrating the simple point that we can have good reasons to think a theory is false even though we have no firm ideas about what a true replacement theory would look like. Do you deny this?

One can challenge the data, its interpretation, the soundness of inferences, etc., and also draw attention to anomlies -- none of which requires having an alternative account in hand.

I wouldn't deny this is true in principle, but in practice it's almost always a sign you're dealing with a denier who has another agenda at stake. In my experience as a researcher, when you have a group of legitimate scientists sitting around trying to explain some data, you have a bunch of competing alternatives that are explained, discussed, and compared, not half the people proposing a single theory and the rest nit-picking it while offering no insight of their own. If you can't offer an alternative explanation, you probably don't have any clue what you're talking about.

PalMD;
Science is not a faith. It is not meant to be absolute either. If history has taught us anything it is that science, scientists and their "theroies" are generally wrong. When they are proven wrong then they are replaced by another "expert" or another "theory". A good example of this is what we have leanred from our Mars explorations. Where our knowledge is now is completely different from what was considered "factual" in the 70's.

When a theory cannot be proven wrong it is given the lofty designation of "Law".

Another example is our current state of medicine, where the theory that a chemical imbalance in the brain is the cause of bi-polar disorder or clinical depression is being treated as a fact, when in its current state, it is merely a theory. Given the fact that pharmacuetical clinical studies have shown placebic effects as high as 40%, their can be some room for doubt that it is the psychiatrists and their medications that have helped people live "normal lives" (whatever a 'normal life' means).

Scientology as a subject of study is like a computer -- it is useless without someone using it. It is a religious philosophy which has empowered many people to change their own lives for the better. It is not meant to be a cure all or a haven for the mentally disturbed. It is a religous philosophy that empowers the idividual to become what is his native state -- a spiritual being that is basically good.

mem, that loose use of "wrong" is a common example of denialist thinking (so is the repeated use of "theory" in quotes).

Sure, theories are often wrong in the sense that they get refined. In a sense, Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" because it doesn't work at very large or very small length scales. And so it was refined, but it remains often accurate and useful, as well as instructive. The world was built on Newtonian mechanics despite its "wrong-ness". This is common.

Theories being completely bogus and being totally replaced with a very different theory is incredibly rare and has only happened a handful of times by my counting. So when, for example, global warming denials say, "well, you might turn out to be wrong", it's true - but it's vastly more likely that they'll be wrong in the sense that their predictions will be off 10% because of small corrections, not that they have no clue what's going on.

So a "spiritual being that is basically good" endorses or participates in ruining critics' lives through lawsuit abuse, and requires its followers to either bankrupt or enslave themselves to the organization to achieve enlightenment?
Just asking, mem...

"So a "spiritual being that is basically good" endorses or participates in ruining critics' lives through lawsuit abuse, and requires its followers to either bankrupt or enslave themselves to the organization to achieve enlightenment?
Just asking, mem..."

Scientology does neither of those Bruce. I am a "follower" and I am neither bankrupted or enslaved. I do not know of one person that has been "ruined" as you put it. Most COS suits that I know of are copyright infringement or slander cases, where a simple "cease and desist order" is all that is required or asked for. Also it is a matter of self-protection. The Church has a right to protect itself in any legal form it chooses.

Mem, you have failed to give the least bit of logical reasoning, but perhaps that wasn't your goal.

If you are going to make extraordinary claims regarding modern medicine and alternatives, you have to propose a viable alternative. The whole "theory/law" canard is a red herring, as other commenters have noted.

Please feel free to show actual data on the failures of modern medicine and the successes of Xenu-worshiping/engram-purging/psychiatrist-suing cults.

jeffk;

I don't think you get my viewpoint. If a theory is proved to be correct it becomes a Law. Newton's theories on gravity are considered "Laws". The theories regarding thermodynamics are considered "Laws".

Generally, theories are wrong, until they are proven to be correct. Just because a theory is considered wrong or is wrong does not mean that it is something bad. It took many theories regarding ship design and rocket fuel development before we became successful enough to travel to the moon. Our next boundary is Mars; and we may have to develop, other useful theories in order to achieve that goal.

Historically speaking, science has been wrong far more often than it has been right. How many distinguished science contemporaries scoffed at Tesla and Edison?

Science is not there to be taken as an absolute, unless it is proven so! Medical science has not cured cancer, yet has many theories regarding cancer, but if you got cancer today, right now, your chances of survival is not very good. So theories mean nothing unless some kind of achievement can be obtained.

First of all, there's no court of scientists that makes something a "Law", and a theory never becomes a "Law" because laws are not theoretical frameworks and only describe observations. They lack explanatory power. So you don't know what you're talking about on this front.

Further, you can't very easily count up "rights" and "wrongs" - when you look at science historically you see an ever-tightening net around the truths about nature. Sometimes accidentally veers off a little but the pattern is very clear. And even when scientists were "wrong", they would assess their degree of confidence, which is important. Some theories are held in more confidence than others because they have better data to support them. Evolution and Climate Change are held in very high confidence by scientists.

Further, it is meaningless to point out that scientists are wrong sometimes, because they know that. It does nothing to change the most important point, which is when you want to know something, science will ALWAYS GIVE YOU THE BEST AVAILABLE ANSWER. It may not always be exactly correct, and on incredibly rare occasions it may be completely wrong, but regardless, there's nowhere else to look. If you have a method of learning about nature that doesn't involve observation and theories, please, indulge us. So when it comes time to make a decision based on what we know, you'd be an idiot to look any place other than the scientists operating in the field in question. You can't do any better.

PalMD;

Any legitimate scientist knows the difference between a theory and a law.

Does "Xanax" or "Prozac" mean anything to you? Or is the death or suicides of thousands of people considerd a good success rate or an acceptable risk?

Name one disease that medical science has cured? Jonas Salk cured polio. Has medical science cured cancer? Diabetes? Heart disease? HIV or AIDS? Despite BILLIONS of dollars in research, no cure has been established. Oh we have extremely expensive treatments that the patients can undergo and doctors get paid whether the patient lives or dies.

Cancer treatments dehabilitate immune systems. Diabetes treatments promote kidney and liver failure. It goes on and on.

And frankly, I do not have to prove Scientology to you or anyone. It is a religious pursuit and is extremely personal.

jeffk;

Give me an example when science was absolutely, undeniably correct. Just one. And don't say "The sun is hot" Just give me a practical application, when science was 100% totally correct.

Also give me an example on when science has given us THE BEST AVAILABLE ANSWER. Just one.

Finding those goalposts heavy, bro?

I'm glad your religious pursuit is personal, but if you are going to claim it is a solution that trumps standard care, that's a cop out.

Second, yes, I've heard of xanax and prozac, and prescribe them quite frequently.

Third, cure is not the be-all and end-all of medicine. I'm not sure why you think it is. We treat all of the listed diseases very well, on an evidence-based model, with a huge improvement in morbidity and mortality in the last 20 years.

What planet do you live on?
Is Xenu the leader still?

mem:

It took many theories regarding ship design and rocket fuel development before we became successful enough to travel to the moon.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. No theories were harmed in the development of the Apollo lunar program. Not one. Zero. Not Xenu, Zero. No scientific theories were revised, tweaked, altered, or adjusted even the tiniest bit.

Got that?

Now go back and learn the difference between science and engineering. While you're at it, learn what the word theory means in science.

Name one disease that medical science has cured? Jonas Salk cured polio.

GOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAALLLLLLLL!!!! Own goal, but still.

PalMD;

And how much do you make on the average for prescribing these pills?

I disagree with a literal interpretation of your post -- it would mean there's no value in debunking a false scientific theory if you can't supply an alternative -- but of course it's perfectly legit to do a proper rebuttal of a theory with no alternative, it's done all the time.

i'd say their bankruptcy is from the fact that they don't have solutions AND their rebuttals are nonsense.

@mem, "Also give me an example on when science has given us THE BEST AVAILABLE ANSWER. Just one."

The Earth revolves around the Sun.

You say that's not enough (despite the "just one" statement) ... You say you want more ... ?

How about, HIV causes AIDS. How about the Shroud of Turin is a fake. How about high blood pressure causes strokes.

Give me one, just one, where scientology has given us the best available answer.

I'm sorry, I don't recall using the phrase "science 100% correct." Although science can make many 100% correct statements, such as Joe's examples.

mem -

I'll add to Joe's list.

Germs cause disease.
Bleach, in high enough concentrations, can kill any living organism (at least on Earth).
When you split an atom, remarkably destructive forces are unleashed.

Also give me an example on when science has given us THE BEST AVAILABLE ANSWER.

Newton's theory of gravity.
That all life on earth developed from single celled organisms.
That everything we are, everything that we see around us, is made of star stuff.
That objects in motion, stay in motion without an apposing force, such as friction.

Hell, most of modern technology works, because scientists were right about somehting.

What do the kids say these days? PWN3D? Scientologists are pretty slow-moving targets, but the gist of what he's saying is widely believed by members of most religions and the American public in general.

You need to tread carefully here, since it is perfectly legitimate to criticize an accepted theory without proposing an alternative. One can challenge the data, its interpretation, the soundness of inferences, etc., and also draw attention to anomlies -- none of which requires having an alternative account in hand. The history of science is full of examples illustrating the simple point that we can have good reasons to think a theory is false even though we have no firm ideas about what a true replacement theory would look like. Do you deny this?

Denialists get all warm and fuzzy about Kuhn and paradigm change. Can anyone provide an example of a paradigm change that occurred without somebody providing an alternative theory that better explained the data.

It should also be pointed out that the so-called paradigm changes such as Einstein's theory of relativity did not involve the previous theory being false in so much as being incomplete.

HIV denialits don't want to just modify the understanding of AIDS. They want to through everything out.

I would say that science is always about choosing the theory that best explains the data. There will always be anomalies, there will always be things that are not understood. Focussing soley on anomalies and "paradoxes" without providing a better explanation is not productive.

Duesberg started attacking HIV/AIDS in 1986 without offering a better explanation. He was told to come up with a better explantion. Only then did he come up with his recreational drug theory. It didn't explain the data better than HIV

Scientologists apparently have the answers to mental illness. HIV denialists swear that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. But very few people are actually buying it---enough to cause trouble, surely, but the Tom Cruises and Peter Deusbergs of the world aren't winning any Nobel Prizes. Why not?

I don't think that the question has ever been whether HIV Denialists, for example, would ever win. The only question is how many people will they take to the grave. Duesberg is partly responsible for hundred of babies that are born with HIV everyday.

Hmmm, I have a dilemma. Do I believe the personal experience of mem, or this?

http://www.xenu.net/

Warm and fuzzy about Kuhn and paradigm change? Not me. Lakatos is much more to my taste. But more to the point, it's a mistake to think that criticism of accepted theories, extending even to doubt about their bona fides, can only be appropriate in the context of a choice between competing theories. It's the specifics of the criticisms, not the failure to a plausible alternaive explanation, that matter. If the criticisms on offer are malformed, or just plain ingnorant, it's appropriate to ignore them. Otherwise, probably not.

Warm and fuzzy about Kuhn and paradigm change? Not me. Lakatos is much more to my taste. But more to the point, it's a mistake to think that criticism of accepted theories, extending even to doubt about their bona fides, can only be appropriate in the context of a choice between competing theories. It's the specifics of the criticisms, not the failure to a plausible alternaive explanation, that matter. If the criticisms on offer are malformed, or just plain ingnorant, it's appropriate to ignore them. Otherwise, probably not.

I didn't mean to imply that you were either a Denialist or besotted with Kuhn.

If you are saying that it is not possible to demarcate science form psuedoscience with a single criterion then I would agree with you. I don't think anyone has made this claim directly.

There are legitimate cases of scientists questioning an existing theory without offering an alternative theory (yet). There are also examples of denialists offering alternative (but evidence free) theories such as Peter Duesberg.

It's probably more a question of focus. Healthy science focusses on developing new theories that not just explain the phenomena under question but also make new predictions. Denialism focusses on attacking the "orthodoxy" and finding "anomalies".

I don't think there will ever be a perfectly accurate way of demarcating science and non-science. It would be nice to be able to give lay-people a simple checklist. It isn't that easy.

Perhaps warning signs is a better description.

Attacking the "orthodoxy" without providing a credible alternative has to be one of the top ten warning signs for pseudoscience.

the Tom Cruises and Peter Deusbergs of the world aren't winning any Nobel Prizes.

To what extent is this true of economics?

This is not just a theoretical question. As the global warming debate moves from 'is the world getting hotter?' through 'are people causing it?' and 'will it cause any problems?' to 'is it worth mitigating it?' economics plays an ever greater part.

I'd like to think that there is a mainstream economics, with an emerging consensus on how to mitigate CO2 emissions, but I worry that's just wishful thinking.

There's the complicating issue that economics denialists might have theoretically well-founded prescriptions, but still be denialists in the sense that they conceal their knowledge that their preferred outcomes favour a select clientele, not the world at large.

ChrisH?

Hmmm, warning signs that denote potential pseudoscience...

How about conspiracy theories? Fake experts? Cherry-picking data (alternatively anomalie hunting - I like that)? Moving goalposts? And of course, logical fallacies...

Hmmm, warning signs that denote potential pseudoscience...

How about conspiracy theories? Fake experts? Cherry-picking data (alternatively anomalie hunting - I like that)? Moving goalposts? And of course, logical fallacies..

I think you have to start of simple.

Layperson hears two opposing stories from "expert" A and "expert" B. Who should they trust?

If there is a vast consensus of scientists supporting "expert" A then this is a warning sign that "expert" B is a crank. It's certainly not foolproof but is a reasonable guide.

If "expert" B just criticises "expert" A without providing an alternative explanation then this is another big warning sign.

If "expert" B forms an alliance with experts C-F who all criticise the consensus but each have mutually exclusive explanations then this is another warning sign.

Maybe it could be quantified with a crankosity scale.

PS. for a good laugh check out Crank vs Crank: HIV conspiracy theorist vs HIV Denialist

Crank vs Crank: HIV conspiracy theorist vs HIV Denialist

Pardon my stupidity.

http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/viewtopic.php?t=9553

Well Duwayne, sorry i have been out of town and no time for fun. Dwayne I asked for one for brevity's sake. I certainly know there are more than one answers to that question. So I will simply take the 1st answer for each:

BEST AVAILABLE ANSWER? GERMS CAUSE DISEASE: Is that really a true statement? What germ causes diabetes? Cancer? Is there really an HIV germ? Does the germ cause the disease or is the body's immune system weakened to the point of overwhelm thereby becoming the causation? I thought genetics has something to do with combating disease? How come the "black plauge" didn't kill everybody? What narcotic treatment for diabetes are design to attack the "diabetes germ"? What narcotic treatments for Parkinson's are designed for the "Parkenson's germ"? How come people still die of disease despite being in an antiseptic environment?

I think science can do better than that.

WHEN SCIENCE WAS CORRECT. THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN. This is a little like "the sun is hot example", don't you think? Prior to this fact (and I am willing to call it a fact) this premise was actually disputed by most learned western scientists of the day? the reason? The person who discovered it was not Christian. It wasn't until it became such an indisputable fact that the viewpoint of western scientists changed and eventually accepted it. But my point is that there were many geo-centric theories prior to this one being "proven".

The other "facts" presented:

I suppose when an atom is split one gets a very destructive reaction. I suppose that, as we have controlled the explosive nature of the combustion enginge to some degree, we will be able to control the destructive nature of the atom.

Life seems to have developed from single celled organisms, but how did single cell organisms themselves develop? 20 years ago the components of the atom were considered the smallest particles in the universe...until someone discovered the quark or is that still a theory. What happens when someone discovers a living particle smaller than a sinle cell organism?

Science is always developing. Almost by definition, it is always proven to be wrong, as it is always balanced by theory and then the facts come later.

Wow.