Denialism

{{bronze}}
[[File:'COVID is a lie', Sports pavilion, playing field, Wakefield Road, Pontefract (4th September 2020).jpg|thumb|right|165px|[[COVID-19 denialism]] in [[England]]]]
{{DenialismSide}}
{{cquote|I've read the stories about people who have died of [[COVID-19 pandemic|covid]], arguing with their caregiver that this is all a [[hoax]], even as they’re hooked up to ventilators and unable to breathe on their own. This is four-star-level denial, but there are many levels below it.|||Tim Carman<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2020/11/29/food-writer-covid/ As a food writer with covid, I worried I’d lose my sense of taste. It turned out to be much worse.] by Tim Carman (November 29, 2020 at 7:00 a.m. PST) ''The Washington Post''.</ref>}}

'''Denialism''' is the refusal to accept well-established [[theory]], [[Scientific law|law]], [[fact]], or [[evidence]].{{efn|A more complete definition of denialism: "Denialism is the employment of [[rhetorical]] tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate [[debate]], when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a [[scientific consensus]] or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using [[Appeal to emotion|emotionally appealing]], but ultimately empty and illogical assertions."<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/ About] by Mark Hoofnagle (April 30, 2007) ''Denialism Blog''.</ref>}} The word "denialist" has pejorative connotations.

In [[scientific]] contexts, the denialist can deny a cause (carbon dioxide does not cause [[global warming]]), an effect (the [[Earth]] is not warming), the association between the two (CO<sub>2</sub> levels are rising and the Earth is warming, but not because of the carbon dioxide), the direction of the [[Causality|cause-and-effect relationship]] (carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing ''because'' the earth is warming), or the identification of the cause-and-effect relationship (other factors than greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm). Often denialists practice minimization ("the Earth is warming, but it's not harmful") and use [[pseudoskepticism|misplaced skepticism]] to give an unwarranted [[Cargo cult science|veneer of scientific thinking]].

Major scientific targets of denialism include [[evolution]], global warming, the link between [[HIV denial|HIV and AIDS]], the link between [[smoking]] and lung [[cancer]], and evidence that there is no correlation between [[vaccination]] and [[autism]]. Often, [[Greed|self-interest]] is the motivation behind denialism, hence [[Politicization of science|politicization]] or financially motivated arguments often come into play. For example, tobacco companies denied the smoking-lung cancer link (even though they were well-aware of it for decades) as it would have hurt their profits. Likewise, [[Andrew Wakefield]] had a strong [[conflict of interest]] in ensuring that people didn't take established and effective vaccines. Similarly, global-warming denialists tend to oppose solutions which aim to address the problem (see the [[logical fallacy]] of [[argument from adverse consequences]]), and get support from energy conglomerates and others who could lose financially from reductions in [[Fossil fuel|fossil-fuel]] use. Because of financial incentive, denialism can take the form of the [[accounting]] known as {{wpl|Deferred financing cost}} (a form of [[negative externality]]), {{IdEst}}, someone else will pay for the costs while the company/denier takes the profits — a future generation, a different stock holder, the government, or an innocent bystander.

Politicians use variations of the phrase "I'm not a scientist but…" to proclaim that they are proudly and [[willful ignorance|willfully ignorant]] of science [[Hypocrisy|while at the same time]] sportingly showing willingness to offer policy opinions in other areas where they also have no expertise, especially [[economics]] or [[religion]]. The proudly ignorant have included a frightening cast of [[Republican Party|Republicans]], including [[Jeb Bush]], [[Scott Walker]], [[John Boehner]], [[Rick Scott]], [[Bobby Jindal]], [[Rick Perry]], and [[Marco Rubio]].<ref>[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/why-republicans-always-say-im-not-a-scientist.html Why Do Republicans Always Say "I'm Not a Scientist"?] by Jonathan Chait (May 30, 2014) ''New York Magazine''.</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/texas-perry-reparative-therapy-i-dont-know Texas' Perry on reparative therapy: "I don't know": The "I'm not a scientist" meme appears to have unusually broad applicability.] by Steve Benen (June 16, 2014, 1:59 PM PDT) ''MSNBC''.</ref><ref>[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/im-not-a-scientist "I'm Not a Scientist"] ''Know Your Meme''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140818094629/http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/in-dc-gov-rick-perry-talks-2016-ted-cruz-climate-change-border-security.html/ n DC, Gov. Rick Perry talks 2016, Ted Cruz, climate change, border security] by Todd J. Gillman (12:51 pm on June 19, 2014) ''Dallas Morning News'' (archived from August 18, 2014).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160209011144/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/27/mad-not-a-scientists/ When It Comes to Climate Change, GOP Candidates are the Mad Not-A-Scientists] ''Hillary Clinton Campaign'' (archived from February 9, 2016).</ref>

Denialism on the left has also been a serious problem, albeit primarily focusing on those oh-so-evil "[[GMO]]"s and other supposed threats to public health while extolling anything and everything that is (often vaguely defined as) "natural".<ref>"[https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/democrats-have-a-problem-with-science-too-107270/ Democrats have a problem with science too.] ''Politico Magazine.'' Published on June 1, 2014. Accessed on June 23, 2021.</ref> For instance, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) infamously championed a wide variety of medical [[quackery]] and forced the Office of Alternative Medicine, which became the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), into the National Institutes of Health. The NCCAM [[WOMBAT|has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars]] in fruitless efforts to "validate" the patently absurd which have nevertheless given much credence to medical quackery and even the licensure of [[Acupuncture|acupuncturists]], naturopaths, and other quacks. <ref>Gorski, David. "[https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/senator-tom-harkin-disappointed-that-nccam-hasnt-validated-more-cam/ Senator Tom Harkin: 'Disappointed' that NCCAM hasn’t 'validated' more CAM]". ''Science-Based Medicine.'' Published on March 1, 2009. Accessed on June 23, 2021.</ref>

Denial of fact is one of the foundations of [[woo]]. Denialism can also fill a deep [[psychological]] need, as in the question of why one's child has [[autism]] — since in [[reality]] there is no known easy answer.<ref name="NS">For a brief discussion of this, along with some commentary from the psychological literature, see MacKenzie, Debora. "Whose conspiracy?" ''New Scientist'' 15 May 2010, 38-40.</ref>

==Methods==
{{cquote|Don't talk to me of independent study or scientific trial<BR> I'm in denial, deep in denial<BR> And as the waters rise around me<BR> I'll just hold my breath and say it isn't so!|||"Denial Tango," Men with Day Jobs<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrURLJ6Vlsg Men With Day Jobs —&nbsp;Denial Tango] (Oct 9, 2011) ''YouTube''.</ref>}}
{{hatnote|See also: [[Pseudoscience#Characteristics of pseudoscience|Characteristics of pseudoscience]]}}
[[Mark Hoofnagle|Mark]] and Chris Hoofnagle at [http://www.scienceblogs.com/denialism Denialism Blog] use their "Denialists' Deck of Cards" series<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140808073018/http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/the-denialists-deck-of-cards/ The Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts] by Chris Jay Hoofnagle with Mark Hoofnagle (February 9, 2007) ''Science Blogs'' (archived from August 8, 2014).</ref> to describe how denialists of all stripes use remarkably similar tactics. Denialists often claim that an established set of [[knowledge]] or [[scientific theory]] is not proven or "[[Sound science|sound]]" and lacks evidence (or enough evidence). They say it is a [[Manufactroversy|controversy]], [[false balance|requires balance]], or requires both the [[Texans for Better Science Education|strengths and weaknesses]] to be considered. These tactics make the denialists appear "[[Fair and Balanced|fair]]" (and those who oppose them [[Dunning-Kruger effect|not]]) and implies [[Fear, uncertainty, and doubt|doubt]] in what is being denied with no consideration of evidence. Denialist groups also produce competing evidence through their own [[PIDOOMA|"research"]], which is often poorly performed (if at all), as it often is done by [[public relations]] firms with no technical expertise. They encourage people to form their own opinions or [[Do your own research|do their own tests]], rather than relying on studies with appropriate methods and [[Experimental control|controls]]. Lists of experts (who may have [[Experts for hire|no credentials in the area]]) are compiled as [[testimonials]], or public relations campaigns are used to improve denialists' images (and [[Poisoning the well|slime legitimate scholars]]). Actual errors in mainstream [[science]] will often be blown out of proportion.<ref>[http://debunkingdenialism.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/common-denialist-tactics-defined-and-destroyed/ Common Denialist Tactics Defined and Destroyed] by emilskeptic (November 10, 2011) ''Debunking Denialism''.</ref> Most denialist [[rhetoric]] is focused [[Anti-intellectualism|at the layperson and not the expert]], and usually paints a contrast between two positions rather than being about one point-of-view.{{efn|Strictly speaking, one could make a distinction between tactics that create doubt (as is the case in consumer products such as tobacco) and those that flat-out deny science (such as [[creationism]]), but the line is thin.}} The use of self-generated content on the [[Internet]] ("Web 2.0") unfortunately contributes to the dissemination of denialist arguments.<ref>[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11019086 Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement] by Anna Kata (2012) ''Vaccine'' 30(25):3778-3789. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112.</ref>

Leah Ceccarelli describes the rhetoric of denialists:{{efn|Caccarelli is actually describing [[Sophistry|sophists]] who [[Manufactroversy|manufacture controversies]], but the overlap is substantial.}} 
{{quotebox|First, they skillfully invoke values that are shared by the scientific community and the [[American]] public alike, like [[free speech]], skeptical inquiry, and the revolutionary force of new ideas against a repressive orthodoxy. It is difficult to argue against someone who invokes these values without seeming unscientific or un-American.

Second, they exploit a tension between the technical and public spheres in … American life. Highly specialized scientific experts can't spare the time to engage in careful public communication, and are then surprised when the public distrusts, fears, or opposes them.

Third, today’s [[sophist]]s exploit a public misconception about what science is. They portray science as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data. Any dissent by any scientist is then seen as evidence that there's no consensus, and thus truth must not have been discovered yet.<ref>Ceccarelli, Leah [http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/print_edition/manufactroversy.pdf "Manufactroversy, The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed"] ''Science Progress'' Spring/Summer 2008: 82-84.</ref>}}

Diethelm and McKee introduced the five tactics of denialists, originally described by Mark Hoofnagle,<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/ About] by Mark Hoofnagle (April 30, 2007) ''Denialism Blog''.</ref> into the scientific literature:<ref>Diethelm, Pascal; McKee, Martin. [http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/1/2 "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?"] ''European Journal of Public Health'' 2009(19): 2-4.</ref>
#The identification of perceived [[conspiracy theory|conspiracies]]. This includes belief of corrupted [[peer review]] and [[Psychological projection|inversionism]] ({{IdEst}}, attributing some of one's own characteristics and motivations to others).<ref>A detailed account of conspiracies in science can be found in ''EMBO Reports'': Goertzel, Ted. [http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v11/n7/full/embor201084.html "Conspiracy Theories in Science."] ''EMBO reports'' (2010) 11, 493-499.</ref>
#The use of fake experts (often with the {{wpl|Smear campaign|smearing}} of real experts).
#Selecting or [[cherry picking]] sources: picking the weakest papers or only ones that are contrary. Particularly worrisome is looking at only a single study, especially in [[medicine]], as one study rarely conclusively proves something.<ref>Kalichman, Seth. "[http://www.thebody.com/content/art52097.html?getPage=2 Denying AIDS Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience and Human Tragedy]". Chapter 6. Text provided on www.thebody.com</ref> Others note that this includes [[anecdotal evidence]]<ref name="NS" /> and [[quote mining]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070307084405if_/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/the_denialists.php The denialists] by PZ Myers (September 19, 2006 10:00 AM) ''Pharyngula'' (archived from March 7, 2007).</ref>
#Demanding [[Lenski affair#Correspondence|impossible standards for research]].
#Use of [[fallacy]], including [[straw man|misrepresentation]] and [[false analogy]].<ref>[http://www.giveupblog.com/2006/09/denialists.html Denialists] (September 19, 2006) ''Give Up Blog''.</ref> Informally, this can include a [[Gish Gallop|witch's brew]] of half-truths and [[Appeal to emotion|sob stories]].{{efn|Generally about the "[[DDT|impending suffering of millions of people]]", but often involving stories about how [[Racism|brown people]]/[[:Category:Religious discrimination|insert other religion here]]/[[Copyright|small independent artists]] are going to steal our money, [[Xenophobia|steal our identities]], [[Nationalism|steal our country]], steal our [[dog]]s, and [[rape]] our women.}} and/or [[spin]] to try to force the public to ignore an important issue.

An example of AIDS-HIV denialist rhetoric is from Herbert Vilakazi:
{{quotebox|"The situation in America is one of intolerance," [Vilakazi] continued, never raising his voice. "There are A.R.V.s [antiretroviral drugs]. Only one approach to treating this deadly illness is permitted. You are not allowed to talk about anything else." He said that people are obsessed with whether H.I.V. causes AIDS, but that he considered such arguments "[[Willful ignorance|completely academic and not relevant for the treatment of sick people]]." He went on, "Let us be honest. Who benefits from A.R.V.s? Hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars have been spent on research and you have to get a return on your investment. It is the first rule of [[Big Pharma|pharmaceutical companies]], and they simply terrorize their opponents. Very frankly, in America there is an official literature — and there are a [[Argumentum ad populum|lot of people in the African-American community]] who feel maybe there is a conspiracy and that [[Bullshit|racism has a lot to do with it]]. Why, for instance, is AIDS the biggest problem that exists in Africa? You start to wonder if there is a social selection for this disease. Is it not a coincidence that Africa is the poorest continent in the world? Did you ever think that it's in the interest of some people for it to stay that way?"<ref>Specter, Michael. "The Denialists; The dangerous attacks on the consensus about H.I.V. and AIDS." ''New Yorker'' 12 March 2007. LexisNexis Academic. Accessed 7 November 2010.</ref>}}

==Plausible deniability==
Plausible deniability is a method used to evade blame, wherein the perpetrator gives a statement that claims innocence, preferably using the [[fallacy of ambiguity]], so as to allow deniability. The political use of this strategy was explicitly formulated by [[Lee Atwater]] in developing the [[Southern Strategy]] used by the [[GOP]].
{{quotebox|You start out in 1954 by saying, "[[Nigger]], nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."<ref>[https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/ Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy: The forty-two-minute recording, acquired by James Carter IV, confirms Atwater’s incendiary remarks and places them in context.] by Rick Perlstein (November 13, 2012) ''The Nation''.</ref><ref>[https://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/03/lee-atwater-interview-with-alexander-p-lamis-rough-transcript-weekend-reading.html Lee Atwater (1981): Interview with Alexander P. Lamis: Rough Transcript: Weekend Reading] (March 17, 2017 at 09:57) ''Grasping Reality by Brad DeLong''.</ref>}}

Historian Timothy Snyder suggested that [[Vladimir Putin]]'s "direct assault on factuality might be called ''implausible deniability''." By denying what everyone knew [about the [[Russian]] invasion of [[Ukraine]]], Putin was creating unifying fictions at home and dilemmas in European and American newsrooms."<ref name=unfreedom>''The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America'' by Timothy Snyder (2018) Tim Duggan Books. ISBN 0525574468.</ref>{{rp|163-164}} The reason that Putin's assault on truth was a dilemma for legitimate journalists was because journalists expect their news sources to "accept the factuality of the world and interpret the same set of facts", they are therefore trained to report on multiple sides of a story.<ref name=unfreedom/>{{rp|164}} When one side of a story has disregard for the truth and is spreading disinformation, it becomes the [[balance fallacy]]. The intent of implausible deniability is generally in the furtherance of [[fake news]], and is one of the primary rhetorical instruments of [[RT]].<ref name=unfreedom/>{{rp|178-179}}

==Denialism vs. skepticism==
{{main|Pseudoskepticism}}
{{cquote|A skeptic will question claims, then embrace the evidence. A denier will question claims, then reject the evidence.|4=[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]]<ref>[https://archive.is/IzmYZ A skeptic will question claims, then embrace the evidence. A denier will question claims, then reject the evidence.] by Neil deGrasse Tyson (5:49 AM - 16 May 2016) ''Twitter'' (archived from 6 Jun 2016 11:47:16 UTC).</ref>}}
It is possible to conflate [[skepticism]] and denialism, as proponents of both seem to "deny" that something exists until they're convinced otherwise. Denialists themselves often claim to be skeptics, and very rarely self-identify as denialists. But to say that a skeptic is a [[homeopathy]] denier and that a [[Holocaust denier]] is skeptical would be wrong. 

While both have a negative or critical tone, the positions are different in how they view and acquire and interpret data. Skepticism is a method while denialism is a position. The opposite of "skeptic" is not "[[Belief|believer]]", and it is possible to embrace something while remaining skeptical. This is an essential part of the [[Philosophy of science|ethos of science]] as it suggests new [[experiment]]s to strengthen or [[Falsifiability|falsify]] a proposition. Skeptics look at experiments to ensure that they were performed properly with the appropriate controls, proper data analysis, and so on. The skeptical method involves examining all data and coming to a conclusion that it produces. Denialists, on the other hand, view data slightly differently, as a means to a predetermined end – minimizing its importance if it goes against their opinion, highlighting it if it supports them, or just plain misrepresenting it for their own purposes. Skeptics keep an [[open mind]] until data shows that a [[hypothesis]] is invalid, while denialists [[Texas sharpshooter fallacy|start with the conclusion and look for support]]. To put it another way, denialism embraces [[confirmation bias]] while skepticism seeks to avoid it.

One blogger put it this way:
{{quotebox|Skeptics also ask questions, but a big difference between skeptics and denialists is that skeptics listen to answers and regard evidence as paramount. Denialists tend to see the piles of evidence against their claim, and see a conspiracy theory to perpetuate a hoax. But skeptics accept good evidence. Skeptics have a lot of respect for science, and denialists are usually out to undermine scientists working in the field where they have an agenda. [[Style over substance|Denialists will wear the costume of scientific thinking]], but they usually show a piss-poor understanding how … the accumulation of studies and data work. (For instance, they promote the idea that if one study can be found to be flawed, this brings down the whole theory, as if the other hundreds of studies don't count.)<BR><BR>

This distinction is really important, because the role of skeptics is to ''dispute and even disprove outrageous conspiracy theory claims.'' Skeptics fight against denialists. That’s why I'm interested in skepticism — I fear that there's a surge of denialist thinking in our culture fueled by new media (which is great at a lot of good things, but also good at spreading misinformation) and the explosion in both complications in world politics and the everyday person's awareness of them. As science begins to dictate more and more of what we know, there's also a cultural backlash that's related to the overall backlash against modernism. Skepticism is becoming more and more important as the political troops to defend science. So when people who are part of the [[anti-science]] backlash call themselves "skeptics," this confuses the issue.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20131205015555/http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/03/13/pandagon-global_warming_denialism_part_3_the_difference_between_skeptics_and_deniali/ Global warming denialism, part 3: The difference between skeptics and denialists] by Amanda Marcotte (March 13, 2010 19:56 EST) ''Raw Story'' (archived from December 5, 2013).</ref>}}

And another blogger:
{{quotebox|[[Carl Sagan]] popularized the skeptical mantra: "[[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]]." Authentic scientific skepticism is an intellectual and scholarly pursuit that requires honesty, rationality, [[logic]], and evidence. Real skeptics do not cling to absurd conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence, nor do they engage in obfuscation, misrepresentation, data fabrication, smear campaigns, or intimidation tactics. These are the methods of deniers.<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-boslough/npr-finally-stops-referri_b_6165846.html NPR Finally Stops Referring to Global Warming Deniers as “Skeptics”] by Mark Boslough (11/17/2014 04:41 pm ET Updated Dec 06, 2017) ''Huffington Post''.</ref>}}

The scientific community's response to [[Halomonadaceae|the possibility of an arsenic-based life form]] is a current example of skepticism.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20111130085908/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/12/08/of-arsenic-and-aliens-what-the-critics-said/ Of arsenic and aliens: What the critics said] by Carl Zimmer (December 8<sup>th</sup>, 2010 4:57 PM) ''Discover Magazine'' (archived from November 30, 2011).</ref> Take Carl Zimmer:
{{quotebox|None of the scientists I spoke to ruled out the possibility that such weird [[bacteria]] might exist. Indeed, some of them were co-authors of a 2007 report for the National Academies of Sciences on alien life that called for research into, among other things, [[arsenic]]-based biology. But almost to a person, they felt that the [[NASA]] team had failed to take some basic precautions to avoid misleading results.<ref>Zimmer, Carl. [ https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/the-nasa-study-of-arsenic-based-life-was-fatally-flawed-say-scientists.html"'This Paper Should Not Have Been Published,' Scientists see fatal flaws in the NASA study of arsenic-based life."] ''Slate''. 7 Dec 2010. Accessed 8 Dec 2010.</ref>}}

Denialism also differs from legitimate [[historical revisionism]] in that the latter acknowledges that a historical event occurred, but uses a different interpretation of evidence. Denialism is usually historical [[negationism]].

==See also==
{{collist|2|
*[[Anti-environmentalism]]
*[[Anti-intellectualism]]
*[[Anti-science]]
*[[Armenian Genocide denial]]
*[[Bosnian genocide]]
*[[Cherry picking]]
*[[A comparative guide to science denial]]
*[[Denial of the victim]]
*[[Fear, uncertainty, and doubt]]
*[[Fox News]]
*[[Gish gallop]]
*[[Holocaust denial]]
*[[I'm not prejudiced, but...]] —&nbsp;used by science denialists as well as by bigots
*[[Just asking questions]]
*[[One single proof]]
*[[Stalin apologetics]]
*[[Statin denialism]]
*[[Vaccine denialism]]

*[[Essay:Elisions]], in which blogger Stephanie Zvan discusses the use of [[lying by omission]] in denialism (specifically in the case of [[sexism]], but it applies overall)
}}

==External links==
*[http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html Michael Specter's TED talk on science denial]
*[http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/denialists.html Denialism blog's list of denialist organizations]
*[http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/oreskes_on_the_american_denial.php Naomi Oreskes on denialist tactics and global warming]
*[http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney The Science of Why We Deny Science] by Chris Mooney
*[http://www.theness.com/index.php/skepticism-and-denial/ Skepticism and Denial] by [[Steven Novella]], compares [[AIDS denial]], [[mental illness denial]], [[evolution]] denial/[[creationism]], and [[Holocaust denial]].
*[http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i10/p39_s1?bypassSSO=1 Science Controversies Past and Present] by Steven Sherwood in ''Physics Today''
*[http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html 5 Characteristics of Scientific Denialism], Skeptical Science
*[http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=228194 Ahmed Ezz el-Arab, leader of the Egyptian party Wafd, denies the reality of the Holocaust, the authenticity of ''The Diary of Anne Frank'' and the authenticity of Babylonian exile antiquities uncovered in an archaeological excavation beneath the al Aksa Mosque]
*[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/ Climate of Doubt], a Frontline report on climate change denialism
*[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/how-to-be-a-real-sceptic/ How to be a Real Sceptic] at RealClimate

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note|2|90%}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}
 
[[Category:Anti-intellectualism]]
[[Category:Denialism| ]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Categories: Anti-intellectualism, Denialism, Pseudoscience