Denialism

Banner at 2017 Climate March in Washington D.C.

In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid believing in a psychologically uncomfortable truth.<ref name="FOOTNOTEMaslin2009">Maslin 2009.</ref> Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.<ref name="FOOTNOTEO'Shea200820">O'Shea 2008, p. 20.</ref>

In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of ideas that are radical, controversial, or fabricated.<ref name="FOOTNOTEScudellari2010">Scudellari 2010.</ref> The terms Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism describe the denial of the facts and the reality of the subject matters,<ref>Usages of Holocaust and AIDS denialism: Kim 2007; Cohen 2007; Smith & Novella 2007, p. e256; Watson 2006, p. 6; Nature Medicine's editor 2006, p. 369</ref> and the term climate change denial describes denial of the scientific consensus that the climate change of planet Earth is a real and occurring event primarily caused in geologically recent times by human activity.<ref>Usages of global-warming denialism: Kennedy 2007, p. 425 Colquhoun 2009, p. b3658; Connelly 2007; Goodman 2007.</ref> The forms of denialism present the common feature of the person rejecting overwhelming evidence and trying to generate political controversy in attempts to deny the existence of consensus.<ref name="diethelm">Diethelm, Pascal; McKee, Martin (January 1, 2009), "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?", European Journal of Public Health, 19 (1): 2–4, doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139, PMID 19158101</ref><ref name="mckee">McKee, Martin; Diethelm, Pascal (December 14, 2010), "How the growth of denialism undermines public health" (PDF), BMJ, 341: 1309–1311, doi:10.1136/bmj.c6950, PMID 21156741, S2CID 35789525</ref>

The motivations and causes of denialism include religion, self-interest (economic, political, or financial), and defence mechanisms meant to protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas; such disturbance is called cognitive dissonance in psychology terms.<ref name="FOOTNOTEHambling2009">Hambling 2009.</ref><ref name="FOOTNOTEMonbiot2006">Monbiot 2006.</ref>

Definition and tactics

Anthropologist Didier Fassin distinguishes between denial, defined as "the empirical observation that reality and truth are being denied", and denialism, which he defines as "an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth".<ref name="Fassin-115">Fassin, Didier (2007). When Bodies Remember: Experiences and Politics of AIDS in South Africa. University of California Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0520940451.</ref> Persons and social groups who reject propositions on which there exists a mainstream and scientific consensus engage in denialism when they use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument and legitimate debate, when there is none.<ref name="diethelm"/><ref name="mckee"/><ref name="FOOTNOTEKalichman2009">Kalichman 2009.</ref> It is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy:<ref name="diethelm"/><ref>Mark Hoofnagle (March 11, 2009). "Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them". The Guardian.</ref>

1. Conspiracy theories – Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in "a conspiracy to suppress the truth".
2. Cherry picking – Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers to make their opponents look as though they base their ideas on weak research. Diethelm and McKee (2009) note, "Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as an indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness."<ref name="diethelm"/>
3. False experts – Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility. This goes hand-in-hand with the marginalization of real experts and researchers.<ref name="diethelm"/>
4. Moving the goalposts – Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence (aka Shifting baseline)
5. Other logical fallacies – Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.

Common tactics to different types of denialism include misrepresenting evidence, false equivalence, half-truths, and outright fabrication.<ref>MacDonald, David B. (2008). Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide: The Holocaust and Historical Representation. Routledge. p. 133. ISBN 978-1134085729.; Bloxham, Donald (2005). The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. Oxford University Press. p. 208. ISBN 978-0199226887.</ref><ref name="Evans-Pgrph-6-20">Richard J. Evans. "6. General Conclusion". David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition. Paragraphs 6.20, 6.21. Archived from the original on October 12, 2007 – via Holocaust Denial on Trial. Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly. They do not present, as genuine, documents which they know to be forged just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious, but implausible, and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents, because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments, if this is the case, or, indeed, abandon them altogether. They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources, which, in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability, or otherwise, simply because they want, for whatever reason, to maximize the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures, as impartially as possible, in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others. They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages in order to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not willfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events, for which there is no historical evidence, in order to make their arguments more plausible.</ref><ref name="Cameron-2004">The dead hand of denialism Edwin Cameron. Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg), April 17, 2003.</ref> South African judge Edwin Cameron notes that a common tactic used by denialists is to "make great play of the inescapable indeterminacy of figures and statistics".<ref name="Cameron-2004"/> Historian Taner Akçam states that denialism is commonly believed to be negation of facts, but in fact "it is in that nebulous territory between facts and truth where such denialism germinates. Denialism marshals its own facts and it has its own truth."<ref>Akçam, Taner (2018). Killing Orders: Talat Pasha's Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 2. ISBN 978-3319697871.</ref>

Focusing on the rhetorical tactics through which denialism is achieved in language, in Alex Gillespie (2020)<ref>Gillespie, Alex (2020). "Disruption, Self-Presentation, and Defensive Tactics at the Threshold of Learning". Review of General Psychology. 24 (4): 382–396. doi:10.1177/1089268020914258.</ref> of the London School of Economics has reviewed the linguistic and practical defensive tactics for denying disruptive information. These tactics are conceptualized in terms of three layers of defence:

1. Avoiding – The first line of defence against disruptive information is to avoid it.
2. Delegitimizing – The second line of defence is to attack the messenger, by undermining the credibility of the source.
3. Limiting – The final line of defence, if disruptive information cannot be avoided or delegitimized, is to rationalize and limit the impact of the disruptive ideas.

In 2009 author Michael Specter defined group denialism as "when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie".<ref name="Specter 2009"> Specter, Michael (2009). Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives. Penguin. ISBN 978-1594202308. Retrieved March 19, 2016. </ref>

Prescriptive and polemic perspectives

If one party to a debate accuses the other of denialism they are framing the debate. This is because an accusation of denialism is both prescriptive and polemic: prescriptive because it carries implications that there is truth to the denied claim; polemic since the accuser implies that continued denial in the light of presented evidence raises questions about the other's motives.<ref name="Fassin-115"/> Edward Skidelsky, a lecturer in philosophy at Exeter University writes that "An accusation of 'denial' is serious, suggesting either deliberate dishonesty or self-deception. The thing being denied is, by implication, so obviously true that the denier must be driven by perversity, malice or wilful blindness." He suggests that, by the introduction of the word denier into further areas of historical and scientific debate, "One of the great achievements of The Enlightenment – the liberation of historical and scientific enquiry from dogma – is quietly being reversed".<ref>Skidelsky, Edward (January 27, 2010). "Words that think for us: The tyranny of denial". Prospect. Retrieved August 10, 2012.</ref>

Some people have suggested that because denial of the Holocaust is well known, advocates who use the term denialist in other areas of debate may intentionally or unintentionally imply that their opponents are little better than Holocaust deniers.<ref name="FOOTNOTEJames2009">James 2009.</ref><ref name="FOOTNOTEFarber2006">Farber 2006.</ref> However, Robert Gallo et al. defended this latter comparison, stating that AIDS denialism is similar to Holocaust denial since it is a form of pseudoscience that "contradicts an immense body of research".<ref name="FOOTNOTEGalloGeffenGonsalvesJefferys2006">Gallo et al. 2006.</ref>

Politics and science

Further information: Antiscience, Pseudoscience, and politicization of science

HIV/AIDS

Main article: HIV/AIDS denialism

AIDS denialism is the denial that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).<ref>Chigwedere P, Essex M (April 2010). "AIDS denialism and public health practice". AIDS Behav. 14 (2): 237–47. doi:10.1007/s10461-009-9654-7. PMID 20058063. S2CID 22822335.</ref> AIDS denialism has been described as being "among the most vocal anti-science denial movements".<ref>Kalichman SC, Eaton L, Cherry C (June 2010). ""There is no Proof that HIV Causes AIDS": AIDS Denialism Beliefs among People Living with HIV/AIDS". J Behav Med. 33 (6): 432–440. doi:10.1007/s10865-010-9275-7. PMC 3015095. PMID 20571892.</ref> Some denialists reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that the virus exists but say that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS. Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to some combination of recreational drug use, malnutrition, poor sanitation, and side effects of antiretroviral medication, rather than infection with HIV. However, the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive<ref name="iomreport">Institute of Medicine (US) Committee for the Oversight of AIDS Activities (1988). Confronting AIDS: Update 1988. Institute of Medicine of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.17226/771. ISBN 978-0309038799. PMID 25032454. …the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive.</ref><ref name="niaid">"The Evidence that HIV Causes AIDS". National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. January 14, 2010. Retrieved October 8, 2010.</ref> and the scientific community rejects and ignores AIDS-denialist claims as based on faulty reasoning, cherry picking, and misrepresentation of mainly outdated scientific data.<ref group="lower-alpha">To support their ideas, some AIDS denialists have also misappropriated a scientific review in Nature Medicine which opens with this reasonable statement: "Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still debated" (Borowski 2006, p. 369).</ref> With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is now spread mainly through the Internet.<ref name="NewScientist">Steinberg, J (June 17, 2009). "AIDS denial: A lethal delusion". New Scientist. 2713. Retrieved October 14, 2009.</ref>

Thabo Mbeki, former president of South Africa, embraced AIDS denialism, proclaiming that AIDS was primarily caused by poverty. About 365,000 people died from AIDS during his presidency; it is estimated that around 343,000 premature deaths could have been prevented if proper treatment had been available.<ref name="chigwedere">Chigwedere P, Seage GR, Gruskin S, Lee TH, Essex M (October 2008). "Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa". Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 49 (4): 410–415. doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e31818a6cd5. PMID 19186354. S2CID 11458278. Archived from the original on February 5, 2010.</ref><ref name="NattrassAA">Nattrass N (February 2008). "Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa". African Affairs. 107 (427): 157–176. doi:10.1093/afraf/adm087.</ref>

COVID-19

Main article: COVID-19 misinformation

"COVID is a lie" graffiti in Pontefract, West Yorkshire, England

The term "COVID-19 denialism" or merely "COVID denialism" refers to the thinking of those who deny the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic,<ref>Friedman, Uri (2020). "The Coronavirus-Denial Movement Now Has a Leader". The Atlantic. Retrieved April 25, 2020.</ref><ref>Phillips, Tom (2020). "Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro says coronavirus crisis is a media trick". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.</ref> at least to the extent of denying the scientifically recognized COVID mortality data of the World Health Organization. The claims that the COVID-19 pandemic has been faked, exaggerated, or mischaracterized are pseudoscience.<ref>Phillips, Tom; Briso, Caio Barretto (2020). "Bolsonaro's anti-science response to coronavirus appals Brazil's governors". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.</ref> Some famous people who have engaged in COVID-19 denialism include Elon Musk,<ref>Walsh, Joe. "Elon Musk's False Covid Predictions: A Timeline". Forbes. Retrieved February 17, 2022.</ref> former U.S. President Donald Trump,<ref>"Don't Be Shocked Trump Lied About COVID On Tape. Be Horrified That It Won't Matter". WBUR. September 9, 2020. Retrieved February 17, 2022.</ref><ref>"Six months of Trump's Covid denials: 'It'll go away … It's fading'". The Guardian. July 29, 2020. Retrieved February 17, 2022.</ref> and former Brazilian President Bolsonaro.<ref>"Bolsonaro's most controversial coronavirus quotes". France 24. June 19, 2021. Retrieved February 17, 2022.</ref>

Evolution

Main article: Rejection of evolution by religious groups

Religious beliefs may prompt an individual to deny the validity of the scientific theory of evolution. Evolution is considered an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal, yet this view is often met with opposition by biblical literalists.<ref name="FOOTNOTEMyers2006">Myers 2006.</ref><ref name="FOOTNOTENSTA2007">NSTA 2007.</ref><ref name="FOOTNOTEIAP2006">IAP 2006.</ref><ref name="FOOTNOTEAAAS2006">AAAS 2006.</ref><ref name="FOOTNOTEPinholster2006">Pinholster 2006.</ref> The alternative view is often presented as a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis's creation myth. Many fundamentalist Christians teach creationism as if it were fact under the banners of creation science and intelligent design. Beliefs that typically coincide with creationism include the belief in the global flood myth, geocentrism, and the belief that the Earth is only 6,000–10,000 years old.<ref name="ag">Template:Cite court, cited by Numbers 2006, p. 272 as "[on]ne of the most precise explications of creation science"</ref> These beliefs are viewed as pseudoscience in the scientific community and are widely regarded as erroneous.<ref>"Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved August 28, 2008.</ref>

Flat Earth

Main articles: Flat Earth and Modern flat Earth beliefs

The superseded belief that the Earth is flat, and denial of all of the overwhelming evidence that supports an approximately spherical Earth that rotates around its axis and orbits the Sun, persists into the 21st century. Modern proponents of flat-Earth cosmology (or flat-Earthers) refuse to accept any kind of contrary evidence, dismissing all spaceflights and images from space as hoaxes and accusing all organizations and even private citizens of conspiring to "hide the truth". They also claim that no actual satellites are orbiting the Earth, that the International Space Station is fake, and that these are lies from all governments involved in this grand cover-up. Some even believe other planets and stars are hoaxes.

Adherents of the modern flat-earth model propose that a dome-shaped firmament encloses a disk-shaped Earth. They may also claim, after Samuel Rowbotham, that the Sun is only 3,000 miles (4,800 km) above the Earth and that the Moon and the Sun orbit above the Earth rather than around it. Modern flat-earthers believe that Antarctica is not a continent but a massive ice floe, with a wall 150 feet (46 m) or higher, which circles the perimeter of the Earth and keeps everything (including all the oceans' water) from falling off the edge.

Flat-Earthers also assert that no one is allowed to fly over or explore Antarctica, despite contrary evidence. According to them, all photos and videos of ships sinking under the horizon and of the bottoms of city skylines and clouds below the horizon, revealing the curvature of the Earth, have been manipulated, computer-generated, or somehow faked. Therefore, regardless of any scientific or empirical evidence provided, flat-Earthers conclude that it is fabricated or altered in some way.

When linked to other observed phenomena such as gravity, sunsets, tides, eclipses, distances and other measurements that challenge the flat earth model, claimants replace commonly-accepted explanations with piecemeal models that distort or over-simplify how perspective, mass, buoyancy, light or other physical systems work.<ref>Wade, Lizzy (January 27, 2016). "In Defense of Flat Earthers". The Atlantic.</ref> These piecemeal replacements rarely conform with each other, finally leaving many flat-Earth claimants to agree that such phenomena remain "mysteries" and more investigation is to be done. In this conclusion, adherents remain open to all explanations except the commonly accepted globular Earth model, shifting the debate from ignorance to denialism.<ref name="Pierre">Pierre, Joe (February 19, 2017). "Flat Earthers: Belief, Skepticism, and Denialism".</ref>

Genetically modified foods

Main article: Genetically modified food controversies

See also: GMO conspiracy theories

There is a scientific consensus<ref name="Nicolia2013"/><ref name="FAO"/><ref name="Ronald2011"/><ref name="Also"/> that currently available food derived from genetically modified crops (GM) poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,<ref name="AAAS2012"/><ref name="ECom2010"/><ref name="AMA2001"/><ref name="LoC2015"/><ref name="NAS2016"/> but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.<ref name="WHOFAQ"/><ref name="Haslberger2003"/><ref name="BMA2004"/> Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.<ref name="PEW2015"/><ref name="Marris2001"/><ref name="PABE"/><ref name="Scott2016"/> The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.<ref name="loc.gov"/><ref name="Bashshur"/><ref name="Sifferlin"/><ref name="Council on Foreign Relations"/>

Psychological analyses indicate that over 70% of GM food opponents in the US are "absolute" in their opposition, experience disgust at the thought of eating GM foods, and are "evidence insensitive".<ref>Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–324. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243. S2CID 261060.</ref>

Statins

Statin denialism is a rejection of the medical worth of statins, a class of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Cardiologist Steven Nissen at Cleveland Clinic has commented "We are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of our patients to Web sites..."<ref>Husten L (July 24, 2017). "Nissen Calls Statin Denialism A Deadly Internet-Driven Cult". CardioBrief. Archived from the original on December 19, 2017. Retrieved December 19, 2017.</ref> promoting unproven medical therapies. Harriet Hall sees a spectrum of "statin denialism" ranging from pseudoscientific claims to the understatement of benefits and overstatement of side effects, all of which is contrary to the scientific evidence.<ref>Hall H (2017). "Statin Denialism". Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 41, no. 3. pp. 40–43. Archived from the original on October 6, 2018. Retrieved October 6, 2018.</ref>

Mental illness denial

Main article: Mental illness denial

Mental illness denial or mental disorder denial is where a person denies the existence of mental disorders.<ref name=:9/> Both serious analysts,<ref>"'Depression' Is a Symptom, Not a Disorder". opmed.doximity.com. Retrieved December 13, 2021.</ref><ref name=":0.1">Escalante, Alison. "Researchers Doubt That Certain Mental Disorders Are Disorders At All". Forbes. Retrieved December 13, 2021.</ref> as well as pseudoscientific movements<ref name=":9" /> question the existence of certain disorders. A minority of professional researchers see disorders such as depression from a sociocultural perspective and argue that the solution to it is fixing a dysfunction in society, not in the person's brain.<ref name=":0.1" /> Some people may also deny that they have a mental illness after being diagnosed, certain analysts argue this denialism is usually fueled by narcissistic injury.<ref name=:8>Saks, Elyn R. "Some thoughts on denial of mental illness." American Journal of Psychiatry 166.9 (2009): 972–973. Web. December 11, 2021</ref> Anti-psychiatry movements such as Scientology promote mental illness denial by having alternative practices to psychiatry.<ref name=":9">Novella, Steven (January 24, 2018). "Mental Illness Denial". ScienceBasedMedicine.org. Retrieved November 4, 2021.</ref>

Election denial

See also: Election denial movement in the United States

Election denial is false dismissal of the outcome of a fair election. Stacey Abrams denied the 2018 election for governor in Georgia was "a free and fair election" and spent $22 million in "largely unsuccessful" litigation.<ref>"An ethics watchdog criticized Stacey Abrams. His boss retracted it". The New York Times. November 3, 2022. Retrieved November 3, 2022. $22 million on a largely unsuccessful voting rights lawsuit [...] In 2018, Ms. Abrams lost a close campaign for governor to Brian Kemp and refused to concede</ref> In the United States during 2022, there is an ongoing stolen election conspiracy theory about the 2020 presidential election.

Historiography

Main article: Historical negationism

Historical negationism, the denialism of widely accepted historical facts, is a major source of concern among historians and it is frequently used to falsify<ref>Watts, Philip (2009). "Rewriting history: Céline and Kurt Vonnegut". Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-five. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4381-2874-0.</ref><ref>Pohl, Dieter (2020). "Holocaust Studies in Our Societies". S:I.M.O.N. Shoah: Intervention. Methods. Documentation. 7 (1): 133–141. ISSN 2408-9192. In addition, Holocaust research can support the fight against the falsification of history, not only Nazi negationism, but also lighter forms of historical propaganda.</ref> or distort accepted historical events. In attempting to revise the past, negationists are distinguished by the use of techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents, attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite, manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view, and deliberately mistranslating texts.<ref name="Evans-145">Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, by Richard J. Evans, 2001, ISBN 0-465-02153-0. p. 145. The author is a professor of Modern History, at the University of Cambridge, and was a major expert-witness in the Irving v. Lipstadt trial; the book presents his perspective of the trial, and the expert-witness report, including his research about the Dresden death count.</ref>

Some countries, such as Germany, have criminalized the negationist revision of certain historical events, while other countries take a more cautious position for various reasons, such as the protection of free speech. Others mandate negationist views, such as California, where schoolchildren have been explicitly prevented from learning about the California genocide.<ref name="ReferenceA">Trafzer, Clifford E.; Lorimer, Michelle (August 5, 2013). "Silencing California Indian Genocide in Social Studies Texts". American Behavioral Scientist. 58 (1): 64–82. doi:10.1177/0002764213495032. S2CID 144356070.</ref><ref name="ReferenceB">Fenelon, James V.; Trafzer, Clifford E. (December 4, 2013). "From Colonialism to Denial of California Genocide to Misrepresentations: Special Issue on Indigenous Struggles in the Americas". American Behavioral Scientist. 58 (1): 3–29. doi:10.1177/0002764213495045. S2CID 145377834.</ref>

Holocaust denialism

Main article: Holocaust denial

Holocaust denial refers to the denial of the murder of 5 to 6 million Jews by the Nazis in Europe during World War 2. In this context, the term is a subset of genocide denial, which is a form of politically motivated denialism.<ref>See, e.g., Strakosch, Elizabeth (2005). "The Political Methodology of Genocide Denial" (PDF). Dialogue. 3 (3): 1–23. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 29, 2007. Retrieved August 17, 2007.</ref><ref>Paul O'Shea, A Cross Too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917–1943, Rosenberg Publishing, 2008. ISBN 1877058718. p. 20.</ref>

Nakba denialism

Main article: Nakba denial

Nakba denial refers to attempts to downgrade, deny and misdescribe the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during the Nakba,<ref>Shupak, Greg (2022). "Erasing The Nakba, Upholding Apartheid". Current Issues in Depth (8).</ref> in which four-fifths of all Palestinians were driven off their lands and into exile.<ref name="pappe">Pappe, Ilan (September 1, 2007). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.</ref>

Srebrenica massacre denialism

Further information: Srebrenica massacre § Denial

Sonja Biserko, president of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, and Edina Bečirević, the Faculty of Criminalistics, Criminology and Security Studies of the University of Sarajevo have pointed to a culture of denial of the Srebrenica massacre in Serbian society, taking many forms and present in particular in political discourse, the media, the law and the educational system.<ref>Denial of genocide – on the possibility of normalising relations in the region Archived March 3, 2016, at the Wayback Machine by Sonja Biserko (the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia) and Edina Bečirević (Faculty of Criminalistics, Criminology and Security Studies of the University of Sarajevo).</ref>

See also

• Agnotology
• Anti-environmentalism
• Barriers to pro-environmental behaviour
• Confirmation bias
• Delusion
• Environmental skepticism
• Gibson's law
• Inoculation theory
• List of cognitive biases
• Obscurantism
• Pseudoskepticism
• Philosophy of science
• Psychology of climate change denial
• Red pill and blue pill
• Reputation management

References

Works cited

• AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (February 16, 2006). "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). aaas.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 21, 2006. Retrieved January 1, 2007.
• Avedian, Vahagn (2013). "Recognition, Responsibility and Reconciliation: The Trinity of the Armenian Genocide". Europa Ethnica. 70 (3/4): 77–86. doi:10.24989/0014-2492-2013-34-77. ISSN 0014-2492.
• Begley, Sharon (August 13, 2007). "The Truth About Denial". Newsweek. Archived from the original on October 21, 2007. (MSNBC single page version, archived 20 August 2007)
• Borowski, Christine, ed. (2006). "Denying science". Nat. Med. 12 (4): 369. doi:10.1038/nm0406-369. PMID 16598265. S2CID 11166916.
• Cheterian, Vicken (2015). Open Wounds: Armenians, Turks and a Century of Genocide. C. Hurst & Co. ISBN 978-1-84904-458-5.
• Cheterian, Vicken (2018a). "Censorship, Indifference, Oblivion: the Armenian Genocide and Its Denial". Truth, Silence, and Violence in Emerging States. Histories of the Unspoken. Routledge. pp. 188–214. ISBN 978-1-351-14112-3.
• Chorbajian, Levon (2016). "'They Brought It on Themselves and It Never Happened': Denial to 1939". The Armenian Genocide Legacy. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 167–182. ISBN 978-1-137-56163-3.
• Cohen, Jon (June 15, 2007). "HIV/AIDS: AIDSTruth.org Web Site Takes Aim at 'Denialists'". Science. 316 (5831): 1554. doi:10.1126/science.316.5831.1554. PMID 17569834. S2CID 30223809.
• Colquhoun, David (September 9, 2009). "Trust me, I'm a scientist". BMJ. 339: b3658. doi:10.1136/bmj.b3658. S2CID 72546131.
• Connelly, Joel (July 10, 2007). "Deniers of global warming harm us". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
• Dadrian, Vahakn N. (2003). "The Signal Facts Surrounding the Armenian Genocide and the Turkish Denial Syndrome". Journal of Genocide Research. 5 (2): 269–279. doi:10.1080/14623520305671. S2CID 71289389.
• Demirel, Cagla; Eriksson, Johan (2020). "Competitive Victimhood and Reconciliation: the Case of Turkish–Armenian Relations". Identities. 27 (5): 537–556. doi:10.1080/1070289X.2019.1611073. S2CID 150456701.
• Farber, Celia (March 2006). "Out of control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science". Harper's Magazine.
• Gallo, Robert; Geffen, Nathan; Gonsalves, Gregg; Jefferys, Richard; Kuritzkes, Daniel R.; Mirken, Bruce; Moore, John P.; Safrit, Jeffrey T. (March 25, 2006). "Errors in Celia Farber's March 2006 article in Harper's Magazine". AIDS Education Global Information System. Archived from the original on December 2, 2008.
• Göçek, Fatma Müge (2015). Denial of Violence: Ottoman Past, Turkish Present and Collective Violence Against the Armenians, 1789–2009. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-933420-9.
• Goodman, Ellen (February 9, 2007). "No change in political climate". The Boston Globe.
• Gürpınar, Doğan (2016). "The Manufacturing of Denial: the Making of the Turkish 'Official Thesis' on the Armenian Genocide Between 1974 and 1990". Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies. 18 (3): 217–240. doi:10.1080/19448953.2016.1176397. S2CID 148518678.
• Hambling, David (September 1, 2009). "Abominable 'No' Men". UK: Fortean Times. Archived from the original on November 26, 2009.
• Hovannisian, Richard G. (2001). "Denial: The Armenian Genocide as a Prototype". Remembering for the Future: The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 796–812. ISBN 978-1-349-66019-3.
• IAP, Interacademy Panel (June 21, 2006). IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF). interacademies.net. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 1, 2010. Retrieved January 1, 2007.
• Ihrig, Stefan (2016). Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-50479-0.
• James, Clive (October 23, 2009). "In praise of scepticism". BBC.
• Kalichman, Seth (November 1, 2009). "How to spot an AIDS denialist". New Humanist. London: The Rationalist Association.
• Kennedy, Donald (July 27, 2007). "Climate: Game Over". Science. 317 (5837): 425. doi:10.1126/science.1147817. PMID 17656688. S2CID 20246619.
• Kévorkian, Raymond (2011). The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85771-930-0.
• Kim, Richard (March 2, 2007). "Harper's Publishes AIDS Denialist". The Nation. Archived from the original on July 16, 2007.
• Maslin, Janet (November 4, 2009). "Michael Specter Fires Bullets of Data at Cozy Antiscience in 'Denialism'". New York Times.
• Monbiot, George (September 19, 2006). "The denial industry". Guardian Unlimited.
• Myers, P.Z. (June 18, 2006). "Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution?". Pharyngula. ScienceBlogs. Archived from the original on June 22, 2006. Retrieved September 1, 2007.
• "Editorial: Denying science" (PDF). Nature Medicine. 12 (4): 369. 2006. doi:10.1038/nm0406-369. PMID 16598265. S2CID 11166916. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 16, 2007.
• NSTA, National Science Teachers Association (2007). "An NSTA Evolution Q&A". Archived from the original on February 2, 2008. Retrieved February 1, 2008.
• Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674023390.
• O'Shea, Paul (2008). A Cross Too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917-1943. Rosenberg Publishing. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-877058-71-4.
• Painter, James; Ashe, Teresa (2012). "Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007". Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (4): 044005. Bibcode:2012ERL.....7d4005P. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044005.
• Pinholster, Ginger (February 19, 2006). "AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event". aaas.org. Archived from the original on October 19, 2013. Retrieved January 1, 2007.
• Smith, Tara C; Novella, Steven P (2007). "HIV Denial in the Internet Era". PLOS Med. 4 (8): e256. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256. PMC 1949841. PMID 17713982.
• Smith, Roger W. (2015). "Introduction: The Ottoman Genocides of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks". Genocide Studies International. 9 (1): 1–9. doi:10.3138/gsi.9.1.01. S2CID 154145301.
• Suny, Ronald Grigor (2009). "Truth in Telling: Reconciling Realities in the Genocide of the Ottoman Armenians". The American Historical Review. 114 (4): 930–946. doi:10.1086/ahr.114.4.930.
• Suny, Ronald Grigor (2015). "They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else": A History of the Armenian Genocide. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-6558-1.
• Vaidyanathan, Gayathri (2014). "What Have Climate Scientists Learned from 20-Year Fight with Deniers?". Scientific American. Archived from the original on August 20, 2021. Retrieved January 23, 2016.
• Watson, James (2006). "Scientists, activists sue South Africa's AIDS 'denialists'" (PDF). Nature Medicine. 12 (1): 6. doi:10.1038/nm0106-6a. PMID 16397537. S2CID 3502309.

Further reading

Articles

• Holtcamp, W. (2012). "Flavors of uncertainty: The difference between denial and debate". Environmental Health Perspectives. 120 (8): a314–a319. doi:10.1289/ehp.120-a314. PMC 3440096. PMID 22854265.
• Kahn-Harris, Keith (August 3, 2018). "Denialism: what drives people to reject the truth". The Guardian.
• Oreskes, Naomi, "History Matters to Science: It helps to explain how cynical actors undermine the truth", Scientific American, vol. 323, no. 6 (December 2020), p. 81. "In our 2010 book, Merchants of Doubt, Erik M. Conway and I showed how the same arguments [as those used to cast doubt on the link between tobacco use and lung cancer] were used to delay action on acid rain, the ozone hole and climate change – and this year [2020] we saw the spurious "freedom" argument being used to disparage mask wearing [during the COVID-19 pandemic]."
• Rees, M. (2013). "Denial of catastrophic risks". Science. 339 (6124): 1123. Bibcode:2013Sci...339.1123R. doi:10.1126/science.1236756. PMID 23471373.
• Rosenau, J. (2012). "Science denial: A guide for scientists". Trends in Microbiology. 20 (12): 567–569. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2012.10.002. PMID 23164600.
• Scudellari, M. (March 2010). "State of denial". Nat. Med. 16 (3): 248. doi:10.1038/nm0310-248a. PMID 20208495. S2CID 26207026.
• Sharot, T.; Korn, C.W.; Dolan, R.J. (2011). "How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality". Nature Neuroscience. 14 (11): 1475–1479. doi:10.1038/nn.2949. PMC 3204264. PMID 21983684.

Books

• Gorman, Sara E.; Gorman, Jack M. (2016). Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199396603.
• McIntyre, Lee (2019). The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud and Pseudoscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 149–166. ISBN 978-0262538930.
• Norgaard, Kari Marie (2011). Living In Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262515856.
• Specter, Michael (2009). Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives. Penguin. ISBN 978-1594202308.

External links

• Denialism Blog
• "Refusing Flu Shots? Maybe You're A 'Denialist'" National Public Radio