The science of anti-science

Debunking bunk about non-bunk that is perpetuated as bunk

Skepticism luckily keeps science honest but outright science denial is a step outside skepticism to absolute denial of reality even when faced with evidence proving otherwise. For example; evolution, climate change, vaccines, AIDS, archaeological evidence for ancient civilizations, space exploration, etc. are just a few examples of some of the types of science that is commonly denied.

The real issue is that it is easy immediately dismiss the people who deny that AIDS exists or deny that we landed on the moon, but that it's difficult to dismiss people who deny vaccines, climate change, archaeology of ancient civilizations, and sometimes evolution.

It's difficult because they're everywhere, it is alarmingly popular.

The belief that climate change is a hoax seems to be not rooted in any actual argument but for political motivations; that somehow if we all agreed we'd be taxed as a way to solve it (which is a leftist perspective) and fear of those implications means throwing out the science all together (which is a rightist perspective). The real problem with this is the fact that politics should take no place in the realm of science. Similar to the billions in bailouts paid by the U.S. taxpayer to fund alternate energy companies who in turn just went bankrupt as committed by the current (left) administration, just as the left pushes to take away certain freedoms and think forcing the tax payer to pay for something that has no current monetary value in solving will somehow solve the whole issue, the right wing side or former administration replaced scientists with lobbyists for the oil industry to fund research on the denial of climate change and then claimed that it "wouldn't alter the results".

There is no "correct" answer to the issue of climate change from either sides of the political spectrum because they're both wrong simply because it's political.

Vaccinations hold the same merit, as long as a few celebrities are willing to risk their entire careers being against a science that has saved millions of lives, claiming it is causing an autism epidemic. So instead of looking at the facts or talking to your doctor, you're willing to risk your child catching a disease because you don't want to "risk" your child developing a disorder that they're not really at risk for. 

Or when the History channel (claiming to be about actual history) airs hour long segments of UFOLOGY and ancient alien theories to somehow "debunk" the non-existent bunk surrounding the fact that human beings figured out a way to build something that seems unusual to us, so we must revert to the most absurd assumption possible and claim that extraterrestrials built them for some unknown reason.

Are republicans responsible for science denial?

No. There is science denial on both sides of the political spectrum.

Vaccination denial, nuclear energy safety denial, and genetically modified foods safety denial seem to be semi isolated in the realm of the political left with some historical denial thrown in.

While evolution and climate change denial seem to be semi isolated in the realm of the political right with some historical denial thrown in. The common belief that all anti-science solely comes from the right is also bunk that comes from the left.

These individuals believe these claims because they're more "fun" than believing the facts and believe them with absolutely little or no convincing, while it could take a lifetime of factual convincing just to get them to consider the other option.

They may seem as if they're only a few steps away from understanding because of their ignorance in certain scientific premises, which is true.

(An example would be denying global warming because the sun will "burn out" like a log fire. A simple understanding of nuclear fusion (should) change that person's perspective.)

But there is something else entirely that is going on in the minds of these people.

Why are these people so crazy?

A psychological explanation:

Denial is a psychological defense mechanism (as stated by Freud) that even when you're faced with the facts and even when you understand the facts you still revert to some un-provable rationalization because you simply don't "want" to believe it.

I want you to think of this the next time you have a conversation with someone and they are making these outlandish claims and once you've provided the facts for them, they still are absolutely ignorant to the facts, then understand they have a psychological disorder.

They simply cannot accept reality because it is too painful to them, it is too painful for someone to accept that the Bible may have got it wrong on creation or that the world is just a little more complex that you'd like to think and this is too much for you to emotionally handle.

An evolutionary explanation:

In early humans; our brains made quick assumptions based our positive or negative feelings about something or someone.  Our brains are programmed to apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only about people or predators but also data. This is basically also the reason for our capacity to believe in things that are not true. (as explained in a previous post)

We needed to make quick assumptions to avoid predators while having limited amounts of information. However useless it is that our brains still do this, the fact is your brain doesn't really know the difference between rationalization or reasoning. You feel before you think, and basically any argument you have with no preparation is an argument on feeling, whether or not your feeling is rational or irrational. Politics is the hidden persuader in anti-science, (i.e. fear of nuclear war, therefore fear of nuclear science.) Politics sway people by the emotions in the same way that early humans were swayed emotionally by their environmental stimuli.

How do you solve this problem?

Convincing someone who is anti-science may be easier than you think. It could basically require you demonstrating the faultiness in human perception. Show them an optical illusion and explain the reality of it, explain what is going on in their brain and make it fun. Then explain the purpose of science and how science is a method and process in which we weed out any possible interference with human perception and our emotional assumptions. Then explain why people can believe in things that are false. Then.. get to your original point and show the data. There may be a chance that this particular individual may consider for a brief moment that they were wrong. This approach may not work because this seems to happen only if the information is being spoken about on a large scale and repetitive. Similarly in the evolution in early humans, if the rest of my group that protects me decides to believe something else, I will too, for fear of rejection from the group.

Politics is a method that continues to keep science tribal. 

If you get science out of politics and keep tribalism out then you won't have several different "tribes" of people cherry picking the facts and denying the ones they don't like. (The very people who vote, whom make decisions that affect lives of others, whom are in charge of funding research to advance and improve the lives in human beings) 

Science is for everyone and it is here to help us truly understand our world and better our lives and the lives of our future generations.

The biggest mistake

Try not to be abrasive in communicating with these individuals.

If you aren't one of these people then you're most likely infuriated when speaking to one of these people, because you emotionally cannot fathom why anyone would be so ignorant to reality.

Here's the issue, you must be the one whom takes the high road if you want to see less anti science and the reason is this;

If the basis for science denial relies on our early human's survival needs to deal with threats, then abrasiveness will only keep that emotion going. A scientific understanding of why people think this way is important to know, because now you know how to take your own emotions out of the argument and understand that if you possess a human brain then you are every bit capable of the same thinking patterns.