Science denial has significant consequences. AIDS denial caused over 300,000 deaths in South Africa. Vaccination denial has allowed preventable diseases to make a comeback. Climate science denial helped delay sorely needed mitigation policies, committing us to direr climate impacts for decades to come.
Skepticism (by which I mean an evidence-based approach) is the antidote to denial. But skepticism doesn’t just apply to how we practice our science. It must also apply to how we communicate our science. There is a wealth of psychological research into the phenomena of denial and how to neutralize the influence of misinformation. To ignore this evidence when countering science denial and pseudoscience is, ironically, not a skeptical approach.
So what is an evidence-based response to science denial? To illustrate, allow me to use an example from my own area of research: the scientific consensus on climate change. The psychological principles emerging from this topic have implications that can be applied to many areas of science.
READ MORE
Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of
Skeptical Inquirer
-
July August 2016
If you own the issue,
Login to read the full article now.
Single Digital Issue
July August 2016 |
|
|
£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
Only £
2.83 per issue
|
SAVE
5%
|
|
£16.99
|
|
|
About Skeptical Inquirer
Does Astrology Need to Be True?
A Thirty-Year Update
Does E = mc2 Imply Mysticism?
Does the Universe Revolve around Me?
A Skeptical Response to Science Denial
Skeptical Inquirer’s 2016
Reader Survey Results