Thread by @c0nc0rdance

An interesting aspect of science denialism is "crank magnetism": people often belong to multiple denialist groups.

- Young Earth Creationists are often Flat Earthers & Holocaust Denialists.
- Many Intelligent Design Creationists are AIDS Denialists.

Here's why that might be:

Denialism utilizes a process that is the opposite of the scientific method.

Denialists start with conclusions & find evidence/observations to back it up.

A religious person might start with obligation to Biblical Creationism: they must find evidence that supports a young Earth.

This apologetics process is exactly how natural philosophy worked prior to the scientific method, but it's prone to exceptional errors.

The conclusion or premise can be faulty & also unfalsifiable. "We never went to the Moon", for example, in spite of falsifying evidence.

Once someone starts down the path of apologetics, they've abandoned critical thinking & the weight of that grows over time.

As a reminder, it's not BEING wrong that feels bad, it's ADMITTING you were wrong that feels terrible. *Being wrong* feels pretty much like being right.

So we have an initial process failure that becomes deeply invested as a person's identity. They begin to think of themselves as "critical thinkers" & distrust the sources of scientific consensus.

Vaccine denialists often become germ theory denialists, for example.

This arrogance/persecution + apologetics is the mindset that a denialist approaches each new subject & along the way, they begin depending on alternative information sources like shady websites, run by other "critical thinkers" with overlapping but diverse denialisms.

So, the person who was merely skeptical that masks work find themselves reading about Holocaust denialism, evidence for a Flat Earth, etc. & they may find themselves connecting with a *community* of fringe-believers.

That becomes their identity: contrarian. denialist.

So, when I see an entire arm of the US political spectrum descending into mask and vaccine denialism, I brace myself for an intensification of dozens of science denialisms.

These bad ideas travel in packs because they align with a flawed human process of testing knowledge.

What's worse: they have political power, organizational structures, and span the spectrum into violent radicals.

If you know a Q conspiracist who has drunk the Kool-Aid, you can predict they'll have views on AIDS, moon landing, etc. within a few years.

We should worry.

Science and rationality have always been tenuous, have always required defense. Karl Popper makes the point that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance for long.

The same is true of a rational society. Either we rise to defend science & rational thought, or we lose it.

How?

I know it's a mistake to meet each irrational belief with evidence & reason: they're not effective on apologetics.

Instead, I think we focus on the mechanisms of signal amplification. Social media has enabled this far more than print media could.

You can take some action by learning more about effective science communication, but the battle will always be uphill.

I am grateful to the amazing science communicators doing good work; who have training, knowledge and a platform.

Fin.