Shopping Cart -

Your cart is currently empty.
Upgrade to today
for only an extra Cxx.xx

You get:

plus This issue of xxxxxxxxxxx.
plus Instant access to the latest issue of 480+ of our top selling titles.
plus Unlimited access to 40000+ back issues
plus No contract or commitment. If you decide that PocketmagsPlus is not for you, you can cancel your monthly subscription online at any time. Auto-renews at €11,99 per month, unless cancelled.
Upgrade for €1.09
Then just €11,99 / month. Cancel anytime.
Learn more
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
IT
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Italy version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Leggi ovunque Read anywhere
Modalità di pagamento Pocketmags Payment Types
Trusted site
A Pocketmags si ottiene
Fatturazione sicura
Ultime offerte
Web & App Reader
Regali
Loyalty Points
98 MIN READ TIME

Public Debate, Scientific Skepticism, and Science Denial

STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY, MICHAEL E. MANN, NICHOLAS J.L. BROWN, AND HARRIS L. FRIEDMAN

When scientists discover a distant planet that is made of diamonds (Bailes et al. 2011), public admiration is virtually assured. When the same scientific method yields findings that impinge on corporate interests or people’s lifestyles, the public response can be anything but favorable. The controversy surrounding climate change is one example of a polarized public debate that is completely detached from the uncontested scientific fact that Earth is warming from greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Cook et al. 2013). How can scientists navigate those contested waters, and how can the public’s legitimate demand for involvement be accommodated without compromising the integrity of science?

Denial of Science

Public debate and skepticism are essential to a functioning democracy. There is evidence that skeptics can differentiate more accurately between true and false assertions (Lewandowsky et al. 2009). However, when tobacco researchers are accused of being a “cartel” that “manufactures alleged evidence” (Abt 1983, 127), or when a U.S. senator labels climate change a “hoax” that is ostensibly perpetrated by corrupt scientists (Inhofe 2012), such assertions are more indicative of the denial of inconvenient scientific facts than expressions of skepticism (Diethelm and McKee 2009). The dividing line between denial and skepticism may not always be apparent to the public, but existing research permits its identi fication because denial expresses itself in similar ways regardless of which scientific fact is being targeted (Diethelm and McKee 2009). For example, denial commonly invokes notions of conspiracies (Lewandowsky et al. 2015; 2013; Mann 2012). Conspiratorial content is widespread in anti-vaccination material on the Internet (Briones et al. 2012) as well as on blogs that deny the reality of climate change (Lewandowsky et al. 2015).

Read the complete article and many more in this issue of Skeptical Inquirer
Purchase options below
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Digital Issue Jan Feb 2017
 
€2,99
This issue and other back issues are not included in a new Skeptical Inquirer subscription. Subscriptions include the latest regular issue and new issues released during your subscription.
Annual Digital Subscription €16,99 billed annually
Save
5%
€16,99

This article is from...


View Issues
Skeptical Inquirer
Jan Feb 2017
VIEW IN STORE

Other Articles in this Issue


Editor’s Letter
The 2016 presidential election campaign—one of the most bizarre in
Bill Nye’s “Promote Reason, Prevent Climate Catastrophes: Let’s Get ’Er
NEWS AND COMMENT
Buzz Aldrin is an American hero. The Apollo 11 astronaut
After years of equipping important security checkpoints throughout Iraq with
In August 2016, creepy clowns were reported in Greenville, South
Robert Carroll, philosopher, CSI fellow, and prominent skeptic widely known
In September 2016, a New York–based psychic was arrested for
COMMENTARY
The United States has just completed the most contentious presidential
SPECIAL REPORT
Every year, Chapman University tells us what we fear the
Susan Gerbic, founder of the Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia Project,
INVESTIGATIVE FILES
Joe Nickell, PhD, is now well into his fifth decade
PSYCHIC VIBRATIONS
Sheaffer’s “Psychic Vibrations” column has appeared in the Skeptical Inquirer
NOTES ON A STRANGE WORLD
Massimo Polidoro is an investigator of the paranormal, lecturer, and
THE SCIENCE OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
False Beliefs about Antibiotics Are a Global Threat
BEHAVIOR & BELIEF
Stuart Vyse is a psychologist and author of Believing in
SKEPTICAL INQUIREE
Benjamin Radford is a research fellow at the Committee for
ARTICLES
Had stem cell research not been obstructed by political and religious opposition, it would probably have arrived by now at effective treatments for a number of severe chronic diseases
Parents and students struggle to distinguish between pseudoscience and evidence-based ideas in child psychology. This study sampled the beliefs of 163 students and 205 parents on topics related to parenting and development
Cretionism is not an exclusively North American phenomenon. In Europe, creationism is also finding a foothold, drawing the attention of European scholars
When news media tailor their science reporting to their expected audiences, the message of science can get lost in the requirements of the medium. An episode of the BBC flagship science series Horizon offers an unfortunate example
Uncertainty and imprecision are basic attributes of interpreting the world and should not be viewed with scorn or disdain but understood, measured (when possible), and mixed into the framework of well-planned and well-reasoned public policies
REVIEW
Nearly six years ago, I reviewed Siddhartha Mukherjee’s book The
NEW AND NOTABLE
Listing does not preclude future review
QUIRKOLOGY COMICS
THE LAST LAUGH