What exactly is denialism?

While doing some research last year, I came across the word denialism.  The author - an Australian academic - did not explain what the word meant, but he was clearly using it in respect of defending his own point of view.

In a previous post on this blog, I presented the reader with a word which I had just invented: mortocracy.  Nevertheless, I was careful in that post to specify what the word means.

By contrast, communists often resort to using words which they have not taken the time to define properly.  My starting point when writing this blog post was to decide whether or not the word denialism is a useful word in academic debate or just another example of communist weasel speak.

In some of my previous posts I have used the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as a source, but at the time of writing it carries no definition for the word denialism.  I merely observe that fact.

I am unwilling to refer to Wikipedia as a source because I believe that the content of Wikipedia pages can be altered by almost anyone at any time.  At the time of writing, the lengthy Wikipedia entry on denialism can perhaps be summed up as defining denialism as the refutation of the consensus view in a given academic debate, whether in the field of science or history.  It appears also that denialism is invariably a negative thing.  There is no hint that challenging the consensus is ever a good thing.

The Skeptical Science website lists five characteristics of denialism: conspiracy theories, fake experts, cherry picking, impossible expectations, and misrepresentation and the use of logical fallacies.  So far as I can make out, the site does not offer any instances of where it is accepable to question the consensus point of view.


With regard to the first characteristic, I am apparently a denialist if I believe that people hold to a consensus point of view because they are part of a conspiracy.  But why should I not assume that?

One of the most famous hoaxes of all time was the discovery in 1912 of skull fragments which supposedly provided evidence for an early human being known as Piltdown Man.  It has been convincingly argued that at least some people in the early twentieth century knew it was a hoax, but were unwilling to say so.  In other words they were part of a conspiracy.

With regard to fake experts, no definition of a fake expert is offered.  Am I expected to believe that an expert who defies the consensus is a fake expert merely on the grounds of his defiance?

With regard to cherry picking, am I expected to believe that people who hold to a consensus point of view never indulge in the selective use of evidence?

With regard to impossible expectations, let me repeat what I said in an earlier post: it is debateable whether or not there is such a thing as proof in science.  Likewise, I remember the headmaster at my school - a historian - asserting that you cannot prove what happened on the way to school this morning.

With regard to misrepresentation and the use of logical fallacies, are we to assume that the consensus point of view is never founded on misrepresentation or the use of logical fallacies?  Also, even if I resort to deception in a bid to discredit the consensus point of view, then that in itself does not prove that the consensus view is robust.

Academic history is full of beliefs which were once well received but which have since been discredited.  The pseudoscience of phrenology is an example.

There are also many current beliefs which could be discredited at any point, and one obvious example is the belief that certain species are extinct.  I will give two examples.

A freshwater dolphin known as the baiji was declared functionally extinct in 2006.  The zoologists who reached this conclusion were not implying that no baiji were left alive, but that there were either no baiji left or at best not enough to provide an effective breeding population.  A baiji was sighted the following year, but this merely proved that the baiji was not extinct.  One baiji on its own does not provide a breeding population.

The Tasmanian Tiger is widely believed to have become extinct in the 1930s, but some people maintain that it still exists.  The difference between the Tasmanian Tiger and the baiji is that any confirmed sighting of a Tasmanian Tiger would allow us to conclude not only that it is not extinct, but also that it is also probably not functionally extinct either.  It is safe to say that any Tasmanian Tiger which was alive in the 1930s is now dead, and so the only way even one Tasmanian Tiger could be alive today would be if a breeding population remained active long after the 1930s.

I will add that a film clip from 1973 shows a creature which I firmly believe to be a Tasmanian Tiger.

In conclusion, the concept of denialism appears to be seriously flawed.  Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, I will continue to regard it as yet another example of how communists seek to distort or even suppress academic debate.

Related previous posts include:
What is mortocracy?
Fundamental issues in science