A Back of the Envelope General Theory of Science Denialism

Modern science is an absolutely amazing endeavor, which has produced insights into the smallest (atoms), the most gigantic (galaxies) and most complex (brains) entities found in nature. We all know that, and there is no need for me to go on for a couple more paragraphs to outline the awesomeness of the discovery of the structure of DNA or of particle physics ect ect….

What is completely mind-over-boggling in this context is that a lot of people refuse to accept the reality of a great number of scientific theories and discoveries. There are anthropogenic climate change denialists, evolutionary theory denialists (creationists), and even folks who deny the reality of the moon landing and the spheroidal shape of the planet we live on (flat Earthers). Recently, a community even formed which denies the very existence of Australia (this conspiracy theory is at least partially a joke, though it’s, sadly, hard to gauge if it’s only a joke to al its followers).

I am fascinated by strange human behavior, and science denialism clearly falls within that.

Here I present the Back of the Envelope General Theory of Science Denialism. It’s a back-of-the-envelope theory because it relies on reasoning and not extensive sociological and physiological empirical research. These are some thoughts which I think globally capture science denialism, with the details to be filled in later.

Let’s place scientific theories in a space where one axis is a theory’s complexity, the other axis its perceived threat to the ideology and life-style of a person. An important point is that the location of a theory is not the same for everyone, for instance fundamentalist Christians will feel threatened by the theory of evolution, while folks obsessed with the government’s evil machinations will be more suspicious about the moon landing. The positions of the theory in this space can be thought of as its maximum ideological threat to anyone, out of all humans.

Now, the more something is a perceived threat to a person’s ideology or life-style, the more he/she is likely to engage in denialism of that theory or insight or fact.

Also, rather simple facts seem to be denied by whole communities of denialists, like the Earth’s spheroid shape. This kind of denialism can be considered a kind of group-think stupidity. There is a gradual transition between the two kinds of denialism.

Interestingly, some important scientific theories are not subject to science denialism. An example are Gödel’s theorems, statements about the impossibility of having a formal system (mathematics) which is complete and consistent (this is a very condensed explanation of Gödel’s theorems!). I am aware of no community of anti-Gödel activists. The theorems are important, but difficult to understand, and their interpretations do not threaten anyone’s beliefs.

A line in this complexity/fear space separates the scientific theories which are denied by (sometimes significant) communities, world-wide from those which don’t. I call this line the Denialism Maginot Line, after a concrete & artillery fortification line, the (original) Maginot Line built by the French military before WWII. The Maginot Line turned out to be almost completely useless once the war started. Equally, an increase in fear and ideological hardening could easily move more scientific theories to the right, across the Denialism Maginot Line. If the “perceived threat of an insight to ideology or life-style” of a scientific insight/theory increases due to a change in the social situation, then that theory would start to attract denialists.

Let’s assume that a religion /cult (same thing!) started which had among its commandments that mathematics is complete and consistent. The followers of this new religion would become denialists of Gödel’s theorems. The theorems would quickly and easily cross the Denialism Maginot Line from the left to the right side, in a move powered by human group-think and ignorance.