Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKeeは否定論者の行動の特徴をまとめている。ちょっと長いので、Debora MacKenzieによる概要版を列挙する。ただし最初の5個がオリジナルで、6個目MacKenzieの追加項目:.

  1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.

  2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
    自分たちの主張を支持するフェイクな専門家を使う。「否定論は、信頼性を仮装する何らかの資格を持つ疑似専門家要員から始まる」とUniversity of ConnecticutのSeth Kalichmanは言う。

  3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.

  4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.

  5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.

  6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.

Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKeeはこのような否定論者に対して、

Denialists are driven by a range of motivations. For some it is greed, lured by the corporate largesse of the oil and tobacco industries. For others it is ideology or faith, causing them to reject anything incompatible with their fundamental beliefs. Finally there is eccentricity and idiosyncrasy, sometimes encouraged by the celebrity status conferred on the maverick by the media.


Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so.


[Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee: "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?", The European Journal of Public Health 2009 19(1):2-4; doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139 ]

これは他の人々も指摘するところであり、たとえばDr. Stephen J Gouldから直接論争を避けるように助言されたDr. Richard Dawkinsは以後、本やメディアなどの手段で戦闘を続行している。

また、HIV否定論では、無視したことが、被害の拡大を招いたとTara C Smithは指摘する
posted by Kumicit at 2010/06/15 00:03 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Skeptic | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]