Chris at Brown Study Blog has compiled what he calls The Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts. It includes an illustrated set of cards showing the most common rhetoric used to distract from the real issues at hand, such as these:



An example of him applying it to such an argument here.

This is an interesting take on the problem of Denialism as part of corporate advocacy. For those who don't follow the issue, Denialism, put simply, is the art of creating controversy where there should be none. It consists of five consistent tactics that allow one to argue without data, facts, or even logic. However, the arguments are still often very compelling, or at least emotionally appealing, even though they are fallacious, distracting and ultimately pointless.

We originally discussed this problem several months ago, and the five unifying elements of most denialists arguments were:

1. Conspiracy: Alleging scientific/liberal/government conspiracies to suppress a secret truth, make profit, "promote atheism", etc. Many times conspiracies are alleged when there is no evidence of one, but these arguments have a great deal of emotional resonance amongst those who feel as though their system of beliefs is under attack from facts (creationists), are protecting an overvalued/racist idea (holocaust denial) or who are generally cranks/egomaniacs/paranoid personality disorder types (HIV/AIDS denialists or 9/11 conspiracy theorists) who enjoy feeling as though they possess information and knowledge that others don't.
   
   
2. Selectivity: The selective use of data or information is a hallmark of denialist rhetoric. A critical aspect of scientific and rational reasoning is the need to incorporate all available information into a theory that describes the known framework of knowledge. If there is data or facts that contradict one's theory, the theory needs to be modified or amplified to include the new data. A famous example is the shift in physics from Newtonian mechanics to relativistic mechanics. Newton wasn't wrong, his observations were never incorrect, but as time went on new observations were made that suggested his physics did accurately describe motion at higher speeds. In comes Einstein. All the data at non-relativistic speeds was still correct, and is consistent with the new theory, but the theory had to be amplified to include the new information.
   
   Denialists frequently use selective evidence, discredited evidence (science never "purges" information from the record that is incorrect), or even worse they "quote mine" to identify data or statements that when used out of context or without thorough understanding of the field seem to support their arguments. No matter how many times you point out that the paper they cite was shown to be incorrect (HIV/AIDS denialists have their favorites), or that the literature has corrected or expanded information on the topic, they will not let go of their small bits of data that support their hypothesis.
   
   
   Particularly well funded denialists will often commission studies that present evidence that appears to support their position, but on closer inspection you see that they've designed a study to engineer a specific result, which leads us to our next category.
   
   
3. The False Expert: Used probably to greatest effect by cigarette companies (the true fathers of denialism), these are hacks that can be expected to publish position papers, analyses (or meta-analyses) that support your position for a mere few thousand dollars. I would include Heritage, Discovery Institute, Cato, CEI, The George C. Marshall institute, AEI, the Mercatus Center, and pretty much everyone linked by Exxon secrets as a likely hack. A perfect example of a such a hack is Steven Milloy of junkscience. A former lobbyist for many of the usual suspects, he is now in the employ of oil companies trying to deny global warming. Using all the tactics of denialism and obfuscation, he happily churns out mischaracterizations of all the science he can distort. Many of these organizations under a mantra of advancing "economic freedom" or "libertarian ideals" promote the absolute worst kinds of abuse of corporate power against American consumers.
   
   Chris's deck of cards really has these guys' number.
   
   
   
4. Impossible expectations: Another industry lobbyist favorite, this is the "moving goalpost" argument or the argument that nothing should be done or a theory shouldn't be believed until a certain level of knowledge is attained. This level of knowledge or specific piece of information is always out of your grasp (or is downright impossible to attain) therefore inaction or disbelief of all the other available data is recommended by the clever denialist. The joke about creationists is that if you show them a transitional fossil, all they'll say is you've created two more gaps in the fossil record. Indeed, one wonders if the only proof they'd accept would be the fossilized remains of every animal that ever lived in one continuous stream, however, one experienced with denialists knows they'd just find some other reason to say there isn't enough proof. This is also a staple of the global warming denialists, no matter how far back the proxy-records of temperature go, they'll always say something like "that's just 0.01% of earth's history! that's like nothing at all!"
   
   It reminds me of these cards.
   
   
   
5. Argument from metaphor/analogy/red herring: One cannot discuss denialism without mentioning their affinity for specific logical fallacies. One of the most common is the use of the confusing metaphor, like the assertion that evolution is like believing that a jumbo jet would assemble itself into a flying aircraft in a billion years if you just shook the parts together randomly.
   
   These arguments often have an emotional appeal, but they're usually based on a false characterization of the problem, or a totally irrelevant emotional argument ("If evolution is true then we're just animals and there will be no more morality", "Hitler believed in evolution and that's why there was a holocaust", "". These arguments are not relevant to the facts but are often very effective because they are difficult to argue with. Even very smart people can be flustered by a completely irrelevant red herrings, or appeals to emotionalism.
   

The relevant cards?



So, huzzah for Chris for publishing his denialism deck of cards for the disarming of industry-funded denialists. I hope it is a success (and based on his downloads from SSRN it already is well on its way).

Labels: denialism