Differences Between Denial and Debate
During the pilot episode of Comedy Central's late night television show The Colbert Report, satirist Stephen Colbert coined the term "truthiness"—truths that feel right regardless of evidence or reason. Using sardonic wit he deadpanned, "Face it, folks: We are a divided nation. Not between Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals, or tops and bottoms. No. We are divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart." Using satire, Colbert captured the essence of an issue that has many people deeply concerned: the denial of scientific evidence on the basis of gut-level emotions.
Science denial sometimes occurs around environmental health issues. For example, some people catch and consume fish from polluted streams despite posted warnings. Some tan themselves without adequate protection against ultraviolet radiation. Others smoke cigarettes or live with secondhand smoke and believe they won't succumb to illness. Still others burn garbage in barrels, ignoring laws and warnings regarding human health risks.
In other cases, industries and interest groups may drum up "organized doubt" in order to achieve a goal—for example, continued production and sale of a product, or advancement of a political agenda. Such campaigns have targeted the demonstrated health hazards of agents such as tobacco, lead, and DDT.
The ensuing misinformation trickles down through the media to the public, resulting in confusion, exasperation, and distrust. "Science, for various reasons, has become more politicized," says Terry Devitt, director of research communications at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. "Science, twenty years ago, used to have more cachet with the public, and that trust has been seriously eroded by coordinated attacks on science." Devitt helped organize "Science Writing in the Age of Denial Conference," one of the first conferences focusing exclusively on science denial, which was held at the university 23–24 April 2012.
Abstract and Introduction
Introduction
During the pilot episode of Comedy Central's late night television show The Colbert Report, satirist Stephen Colbert coined the term "truthiness"—truths that feel right regardless of evidence or reason. Using sardonic wit he deadpanned, "Face it, folks: We are a divided nation. Not between Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals, or tops and bottoms. No. We are divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart." Using satire, Colbert captured the essence of an issue that has many people deeply concerned: the denial of scientific evidence on the basis of gut-level emotions.
Science denial sometimes occurs around environmental health issues. For example, some people catch and consume fish from polluted streams despite posted warnings. Some tan themselves without adequate protection against ultraviolet radiation. Others smoke cigarettes or live with secondhand smoke and believe they won't succumb to illness. Still others burn garbage in barrels, ignoring laws and warnings regarding human health risks.
In other cases, industries and interest groups may drum up "organized doubt" in order to achieve a goal—for example, continued production and sale of a product, or advancement of a political agenda. Such campaigns have targeted the demonstrated health hazards of agents such as tobacco, lead, and DDT.
The ensuing misinformation trickles down through the media to the public, resulting in confusion, exasperation, and distrust. "Science, for various reasons, has become more politicized," says Terry Devitt, director of research communications at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. "Science, twenty years ago, used to have more cachet with the public, and that trust has been seriously eroded by coordinated attacks on science." Devitt helped organize "Science Writing in the Age of Denial Conference," one of the first conferences focusing exclusively on science denial, which was held at the university 23–24 April 2012.
Source...