Michael Shermer has written an essay in New Scientist on the difference between skepticism and denial. Here’s an excerpt:
What is the difference between a sceptic and a denier? When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts wherever they lead.
A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing “confirmation bias” – the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest.
Scepticism is integral to the scientific process, because most claims turn out to be false. Weeding out the few kernels of wheat from the large pile of chaff requires extensive observation, careful experimentation and cautious inference. Science is scepticism and good scientists are sceptical.
Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it – sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact.
You can read the whole thing here. I think it’s very important to be a skeptic and important not to be a denialist.
This was the first New Scientist I had ever brought. It was a really good article. I recommend everyone go out and buy it.
This is worth a share on facebook! As well as later reposting of the article. I think this quote sums it up: “Denial is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the belief takes precedence over evidence.”
Interesting points, but I have disagreements with this position. Isn’t everyone, whether or not they believe in a God, or have any other agenda or not, aren’t they already operating with subliminal bias toward data they take in? I don’t believe that anyone is truly “a blank slate.” So my point is, no skeptic is truly unbias. It seems apparent to me that when skeptics (anyone for that matter) really start following the trail of truth, “examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts wherever they lead”, actually will not follow the facts to where they lead because that may mean they will have to change the whole way they have been living.
And your point and conclusion of Skepticism vs Denialism’s article, please?
I think everyone at times employs confirmation bias, but the difference between a Sceptic and a Denier, is that the Sceptic occasionally might pass up an article in which he has a reasonable suspicion it would be nonsensical (such as something that claims the Holocaust never happened), but the Denier instead passes up all available evidence because he doesn’t *want* to believe.
When a sceptic is backed into a corner with irrefutable evidence, then they should change positions. For a Denier, you could have all the evidence right in front of them and they’d only find a way not to confront the evidence itself, but make some half-assed argument and then insert a conspiracy at the end.
What you are saying is true and important. It is of course impossible to completely eliminate biases, and in fact biases play a much greater role in our thoughts than we like to think.
However, it is still clearly possible to differentiate between those who actively attempt to eliminate these biases when possible, often systematically, and those who just pretend like they don’t exist and fall victim to them to the extreme. That is, after all, the point of the scientific method.
That is, the difference between a skeptic and a denier is one of degree.
The problem as I see it is that science is about logic, but all the scientists are humans and humans are prone to being illogical. This is actually the reason for “double-blind testing”. The theory is that one scientist will be prone to confirmation bias and may bend the facts to suit his theories. Two scientists will each have a bias, but in theory they will not have the same bias. And in DBT the two groups of scientists are not allowed to share data, so the only way they can both arrive at one conclusion is if they are correct or if they all have similar biases. The second possibility is the reason why every idea (scientific, religious, or philosophical) should always be retested as much as possible. The good ones will generally pass infinite tests, but a bad one may pass a thousand tests.
Double-blind tests should remove biases regardless of whether the people share them. I mean, the treatments are labeled A and B, so unless the doctor or patient has a particular bias for or against the letter A or B, there should be no way any biases come into play at all. The only risk is that the statistical analysis will be biased by the statistician (although if done properly, this should not be possible, since math is math), which is why some studies are triple-blinded.
The problem with double-blind tests is that not all parts of science are well suited to them. Cosmology and evolution spring to mind – right then let’s just produce another big bang to be sure of our results!
You have to work with what your given and inevitability there will be some bias there.
No-one’s ever done a double-blind study on the efficacy of heart transplants, for example.
“this should not be possible, since math is math”
:-)
You shouldn’t underestimate the efforts of the A-team, who are trying to deny any test with a positive result for B. But don’t worry, we are a lot of people trying to reveal the conspiracy and their ways will have an end B-for long.
I think the root cause of this is that people don’t want to be wrong. And I can sympathize, it’s hard to admit you were plain wrong about something factual. But it’s an important thing to admit because the truth is always better than something demonstrably false.
” it’s very important to be a skeptic and important not to be a denialist.”
especially a conspiracy denialist.
He was more articulate than I on an explanation for my mixed feelings about James Randi. When I wholeheartedly agree with Randi, it’s great fun, but he seems like more of a denialist than a skeptic to me. He has the position staked out and sets out to support rather than research it.
Any sceptic can seem a denialist for a believer, or a believer to a denialist. We don’t use to discuss the method and the evidences enough. Hey, not every scientist understands even the scientific method!
I don’t call myself sceptic. I have this negative association that a sceptic is some kind of bully pretending to know better. But I will check claims with reality and have no problem to change my vision completely if I am proven wrong.
I’m a sceptic, but I’m not a skeptic.
As long as you’re not septic, you’re good to go.
I tend to agree with Shermer’s statements, but I think it’s a double-edged sword.
Very often, when someone expresses skepticism about an issue (especially climate change), they are immediately labeled a DENIALIST in a pejorative sense (i.e.: skepticism == denialism, therefore any contradictory non-status-quo view can be rejected out of hand, no matter if a valid point is raised or not). This sort of extreme reactionary behavior seems to happen very frequently in any discussion of climate change, especially on the Internet.
Automatically labeling genuinely skeptical people as “denialists” simply drives them away from your point of view and further towards others who might take advantage of their skepticism.
It’s also disturbing that the “denialist” term is thrown about so willy-nilly. Especially when there is almost always a sinister unspoken inference, in a wink wink nudge nudge sort of way, to holocaust denial. The inference being that anyone who has any kind of skepticism at all about climate change is automatically the same as people who believe that the holocaust was a hoax. It’s really rather sickening.
Name-calling and labeling people who raise valid points doesn’t help your cause at all. Quite to the contrary; it’s extremely damaging to it. Try listening once in a while.