https://theconversation.com/the-thinking-error-at-the-root-of-science-denial-96099" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);">https://theconversation.com/the-thinking-error-at-the-root-of-science-denial-96099</a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:11pt;">
The thinking error at the root of science denial
Currently, there are three important issues on which there is scientific consensus but controversy among lay people: climate change, biological evolution and childhood vaccination.
This widespread rejection of scientific findings presents a perplexing puzzle to those of us who value an evidence-based approach to knowledge and policy.
Yet many science deniers do cite empirical evidence. The problem is that they do so in invalid, misleading ways. Psychological research illuminates these ways.
Noshades of grey
As a psychotherapist, I see a striking parallel between a type of thinking involved in many mental health disturbances and the reasoning behind science denial.
In this type of cognition, a spectrum of possibilities is divided into two parts, with a blurring ofd istinctions within those categories. Shades of gray are missed; everything is considered either black or white.
Dichotomous thinking is not always or inevitably wrong, but it is a poor tool for understanding complicated realities because these usually involve spectrums of possibilities, not binaries.
In my observations, I see science deniers engage in dichotomous thinking about truth claims.
In evaluating the evidence for a hypothesis or theory, they divide the spectrum of possibilities into two unequal parts: perfect certainty and inconclusive controversy. Any bit of data that does not support a theory is misunderstood to mean that the formulation is fundamentally in doubt, regardless of the amount of supportive evidence.
Similarly, deniers perceive the spectrum of scientific agreement as divided into two unequal parts: perfect consensus and no consensus at all.
There is no ‘proof’ in science
In my view, science deniers misapply the concept of “proof.”
I have observed deniers use a three-step strategy to mislead the scientifically unsophisticated.
First,they cite areas of uncertainty or controversy, no matter how minor, within the body of research that invalidates their desired course of action.
Second, they categorize the overall scientific status of that body of research as uncertain and controversial.
Finally, deniers advocate proceeding as if the research did not exist.
For example, climate changes keptics jump from the realization that we do not completely understand all climate-related variables to the inference that we have no reliable knowledge at all.
Similarly, they give https://critical-angle.net/2017/05/...n-anthropogenic-global-warming-is-97-or-99-99" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);">equalweight to the 97 percent of climate scientists who believe inhuman-caused global warming and the 3 percent who do not, even though many of the latter https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ience-is-a-product-with-an-industry-behind-it" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);">receivesupport from the fossil fuels industry.
This same type of thinking can be seen among creationists.
There is a vast gulf between perfect knowledge and total ignorance, and we live most of our lives in this gulf.
Informed decision-making in the real world can never be perfectly informed, but responding to the inevitable uncertainties by ignoring the best available evidence is no substitute for the imperfect approach to knowledge called science.
