Should We Resort to Terms like "Denier" and "Anti-Science"?

"Denier" is a description.

"Whackjob" is namecalling.

See the difference?

If the person denies something (such as the Holocaust or the existence and pathogenicity of HIV), then s/he should be calles a denialist. Call it like it is.

But anti-science? Unless the person has blatantly taken positions in direct opposition to scientific principle, then no. Much of the time the people we call anti-science appear to simply be stupid. In which case, we should just call them stupid. I am slightly being facetious. I just think it speaks volumes about the scientific ignorance that pervades society at large.

I prefer accusing them of innumeracy.

For most scientists or skeptics the term 'denialist' has a very particular meaning. It doesn't mean the complete rejection of individual scientific facts - denialists always use at least some scientific facts in their arguments. What it does mean is the refusal to accept the scientific method itself as a means of settling disputes about the natural world. The types of groups that skeptics call denialists, such as anti-evolutionists, 911 conspiracy theorists, anti-global warming activists and anti-vaccinationists all behave in a remarkably similar manner in this regard. They generally have a fixed idea at the outset and will only use scientific facts that support this conclusion, ignoring or disputing anything that contradicts their initial point.

I see what you did there.

I don't think it's a matter of "resorting" to anything - it's just a matter of calling a wooden-shafted metal gardening implement a spade.

As with any term, every effort should be made to apply 'denier' or 'anti-science' accurately, but if it's accurate, don't shy away from it.

Should We Resort to Terms like "Denier" and "Anti-Science"?

When the shoe fits, yes. Although it surely depends on the context. I would have no trouble calling an evolution-denying troll on an internet message board either, or an IDiot. In person, I would do my best to engage someone as a human and attempt to reason with him/her.

As religious as America is, it is still extremely "pro-science". The anti-science arrow is a useful one to have in one's quiver.

Those are loaded up political words that are the scientific community's counterpoints to words like "Godless" and "athiest".

Some of the more hard-core fundamentalists are anti-science and should be called as such. And we have all seen by now that there is a cadre of denialism specialists, who got their start with anti-tabacco litigation and working for HMOs, and then took their dubious trade into the arena of environmental science. Theses are professional lawyers and advocates for hire, and research reveals the same "experts" who showed up defending big tobacco have also made them selves good money using the same techniques to obfuscate environmental science for a new set of customers.

These are denialists and should be called as such.

I think these are not terms that should be used lightly, and those who would use them should have evidence to back up their claims that someone is anti-science or is a denialist. That way, they know that when they hear those words, the proof if their past activities and writings is about to become public knowledge.

It would, of course, be far better if we could engage in intelligent, humane discussions about religion and science. But those who sense that sanity and intelligence are not on their side are all too ready to try to exhort lynch mobs using politically loaded language. So they have to be dealt with by making it public knowledge who they really are and what their agenda really is.