In discussion of one of my recent posts, Kyril reacted to a questionable question from another commentator with perhaps the clearest differentiation between a science skeptic and denier that I have ever seen. As we seek to inform others about the perils of anti-science syndrome, such a clear (if perhaps sophomoric) differentiation might have value. Kyril’s full comment follows. The question: What do you think?
No, they’re not deniers, but you probably are.
Let me break it down for you.
Legitimate scientific skepticism:
“I found a flaw in one of your statistical methods. Here’s a better way to do it, and here are my results using the new method.”
Denialism:
“I found a flaw in one of your statistical methods. 
Therefore, you’re a liar liar pants on fire.”
Legitimate scientific skepticism:
“I think one of your data sets is questionable. Here’s an analysis of how that data set impacts your overall result.”
Denialism:
“I think one of your data sets is questionable. Therefore, you’re a liar liar pants on fire.”
Legitimate scientific skepticism:
“I think your model fails to account for a factor that I believe is significant. Here’s a modified model that accounts for the factor you left out, and here are my results with the new model.”
Denialism:
“I think your model fails to account for a factor that I believe is significant. Therefore, you’re a liar liar pants on fire.”
Get it yet?
Note: This typology of motivations for climate skeptics might be of interest.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Scepticism, denial and the high court | Open Parachute // Jul 17, 2012 at 8:46 pm
[…] between scepticism and denial. It’s from Get Energy Smart! NOW! and the post is titled “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire …” Differentiating Skeptic from Denier. (I sort of think the childishness of the title is appropriate in this […]
2 Scientific Skepticism or Denialism | Brian Chapel // Jul 22, 2012 at 1:19 pm
[…] and debated. In particular, I wish they understood the critical role of skepticism. Check out this blog post on the difference between scientifically required skepticism and mindless […]
3 Tackling the renewable canard of ‘only X percent’ // Nov 27, 2014 at 8:36 am
[…] came up in a recent back-and-forth with a climate denier (okay, actually more like a ‘climate impact denier’ and ‘climate mitigation […]
4 California pleads with Senator @JimInhofe (R-@ExxonMobil): “Throw some snowballs in our direction” // Mar 31, 2015 at 10:33 am
[…] science engagement, more appropriately called science denial, had a famous incident last month: a snowball on the Senate […]
5 Start saying everything is related to #climate change. Just start it. // Jan 14, 2016 at 6:07 am
[…] last month, there is no reason to repeat things over again) and some do this from direct climate-science denial. No matter what the ’cause’, the reality is that this is a disservice to public […]