Studies in and of 63 (2017) 39e47

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in History and

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa

Science as a form of

Sven Ove Hansson

Department of Philosophy and History, Royal Institute of (KTH), Brinellvägen 32, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden article info abstract

Article history: Science poses a serious threat to human health and the long-term sustainability of human Received 14 September 2016 civilization. Although it has recently been rather extensively discussed, this discussion has rarely been Received in revised form connected to the extensive literature on pseudoscience and the science-pseudoscience demarcation. This 3 March 2017 contribution argues that science denialism should be seen as one of the two major forms of pseudo- Available online 31 May 2017 science, alongside of pseudotheory promotion. A detailed comparison is made between three prominent forms of science denialism, namely relativity theory denialism, denialism, and climate science Keywords: denialism. Several characteristics are identified that distinguish science denialism from other forms of Science denialism Pseudoscience pseudoscience, in particular its persistent fabrication of fake controversies, the extraordinary male Climate science denialism dominance among its activists, and its strong connection with various forms of right-wing politics. It is argued that the scientific response to science denialism has to be conceived with these characteristics in Relativity theory denial mind. In particular, it is important to expose the fabricated fake controversies for what they are and to reveal how science denialists consistently use deviant criteria of assent to distort the scientific process. Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction important characteristics in common with other forms of pseudo- science, but also some characteristics of its own. Due to the prevalence of well-moneyed and politically well- In Section 2 the concepts of science and pseudoscience are connected antagonists of climate science, the phenomenon of sci- briefly clarified, and a distinction is proposed between two forms of ence denial has become an increasingly discussed topic in the last the latter, namely science denialism and pseudotheory promotion. decade. Several authors have commented on the similarities be- The following two sections explore the characteristics of three tween unscientific rejections of climate science and similar re- prominent forms of science denialism, namely relativity theory actions to other scientific areas such as evolution, vaccination, and denialism, evolution denialism, and climate science denialism. disease. The terms science denial and science denialism are Section 3 is devoted to four major epistemological characteristics, now commonly used to describe these anti-scientific activities, and and Section 4 to ten characteristics that may be described as more a literature is emerging that describes their common features sociological. In Section 5 science denialism is compared to pseu- (Diethelm & McKee, 2009; Liu, 2012; Rosenau, 2012) and also the dotheory promotion, and characteristics that distinguish science personal, organizational and economic bonds between them denialism from other forms of pseudoscience are singled out. In (Oreskes & Conway, 2010). However, few references have been Section 6 some implications of this investigation for scientific re- made in this discussion to the literature on pseudoscience and the sponses to science denial are pointed out. science/pseudoscience demarcation. The discussion on pseudosci- ence is considerably older and much more extensive, and it is also much more strongly connected to general themes in the philosophy 2. Science, pseudoscience, and science denialism of science (Hansson, 2008; Pigliucci and Boudry 2013). It is the purpose of the present contribution to show how science denial can Science is the practice that provides us with the most reliable be understood as one of two major forms of pseudoscience. It has (i.e. epistemically most warranted) statements that can be made, at the time being, on subject matter covered by the community of knowledge disciplines. This includes statements on nature, our- selves as human beings, our societies, our physical constructions, E-mail address: [email protected]. and our thought constructions. (Hansson, 2013a) As I have argued http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002 0039-3681/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 40 S.O. Hansson / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 63 (2017) 39e47 in detail elsewhere, a statement should be considered to be pseu- scientology doscientific if and only if it satisfies the following three criteria: transcendental meditation ancient astronaut theories 1. It pertains to an issue within the domains of science in a broad sense (the criterion of scientific domain). The two categories are by no means mutually exclusive. Most 2. It suffers from such a severe lack of reliability that it cannot at all pseudoscientific teachings seem to belong primarily to either of the be trusted (the criterion of unreliability). two, but often the practice of one leads into the other. The 3. It is part of a doctrine whose major proponents try to create the distinction should therefore not be seen as a strict dichotomy, but impression that it represents the most reliable knowledge on its rather as a spectrum or continuum with many gradations between subject matter (the criterion of deviant doctrine). (Hansson, its two endpoints. For instance, scientology is predominantly a case 2013a) of pseudotheory promotion, but as part of the promotion of their own alleged solutions to psychiatric problems scientologists have The term “science in a broad sense” in the first criterion in- engaged in vitriolic attacks on virtually all forms of psychiatry, dicates that the word “science” is taken in a broad sense that also including science-based psychiatric treatments that (contrary to includes the humanities. (This corresponds to the usage of the scientological practices) have well-documented beneficial effects German term “Wissenschaft”.)1 This broad definition simplifies (Kent, 1999). Another interesting example is creationism. It origi- discussions on science denial and other forms of pseudoscience. nated in religiously motivated unwillingness to accept the over- The misrepresentations of history presented by Holocaust deniers whelming evidence for biological evolution. In order to make their and other pseudo-historians are very similar in nature to the mis- case more credible, creationists have often portrayed their teach- representations of natural science promoted by creationists and ings as some form of alternative theory about the origin of life, but homeopaths. it is obvious from their writings that these more “positive” ele- Concerning the second criterion it should be observed that good ments of the message have only a subsidiary role in relation to the science is characterized not only by being reliable but also by being denial of evolution. (Boudry, Blancke, & Braeckman, 2010) All major fruitful for knowledge production and in many cases practically versions of creationism (including its skeletal version “intelligent useful. According to this definition, lack of these other qualities design”) are still predominantly forms of science denialism. does not suffice to classify a claim or a practice as pseudoscientific. In order to identify some major characteristics of science deni- (It may be sufficient for classification as bad science.) alism, three influential forms of it will be compared, namely rela- The third criterion excludes some practices that satisfy the other tivity theory denialism, evolution denialism, and climate science two criteria but are still not called pseudoscience. In particular it denialism. Relativity theory denialism had its heyday in the 1920s excludes fraud in science. This is a practice that clearly satisfies the and 1930s but it still has enthusiastic adherents (Beyerchen, 1977; first two criteria but is still not called “pseudoscience”. It also ex- Wazeck, 2009). Evolution denialism (creationism) has a long his- cludes mistakes in science, for instance the inadvertent use of tory, but the elaboration of pseudoscientific arguments against grossly inadequate measurements methods. As I have discussed in evolution had a breakthrough in the 1960s (Kirkpatrick, 2000; some detail elsewhere, the missing element in cases of fraud and Montgomery, 2012). Climate science denialism (self-named serious mistakes is a deviant doctrine. (Hansson,1996, 2009, 2013a) “climate ”) got off the ground in the 1980s (Mooney, Isolated breaches of the requirements of science are usually not 2005; Oreskes & Conway, 2010). regarded as pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience, as it is commonly conceived, involves a sustained effort to promote teachings that do 3. Four epistemological characteristics not have scientific legitimacy at the time. This doctrinal deviation of pseudoscience can take two major In this section, four characteristics of science denialism will be forms. We can distinguish between science denialism and pseudo- introduced that are all epistemologically significant and closely theory promotion. Science denialists are driven by their enmity to- connected with the failure of these teachings to provide us with wards some specific scientific account or theory. Some typical reliable knowledge. examples are: 3.1. Cherry-picking denialism holocaust denialism In order to form a well-considered scientific judgment it is relativity theory denialism essential to evaluate the whole body of evidence. In many if not aids denialism most areas of science, reports can be found that might, if considered vaccination denialism alone, be taken to support a conclusion different from that which tobacco disease denialism follows from the full body of evidence. For instance, in clinical medicine there are often case reports that seemingly contradict the Pseudotheory promoters are driven by their aspirations to conclusions that are supported by the overwhelming evidence advance a theory or a claim of their own. This implies the rejection from well-conducted clinical trials. Arguably, you can prove almost of some parts of science, but that is not a primary goal for them, anything you want by cherry-picking the evidence. A classic only a means to promote their own theory. Some examples are: example is the tobacco industry’s campaigns in the 1990s in which cherry-picking was systematically employed to discredit the evi- dence showing that causes deadly diseases homeopathy (Barnes & Bero, 1998; Francis, Shea, & Samet, 2006). iridology The Conservapedia website entry “Counterexamples to Rela- tivity” is a clear example of cherry-picking. It contains a long list of observations and alleged anomalies that have the appearance of counterexamples to relativity theory. (One of these purported de- 1 The broad definition of the term follows from the basic definition of science stated in the first sentence of this section. For further justification of this definition, viations from the predictions of relativity theory is nicely explained see Hansson, 2013a,62e66, and 2015,15e16. in Turyshev et al., 2012.) Similarly, the deniers of evolution science S.O. Hansson / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 63 (2017) 39e47 41 constantly refer to a few pieces of evidence from the paleontolog- Instead they held on to pre-Newtonian physics. One of the most ical literature that may, taken out of context, seem to gainsay the important features of Newton’s theory of gravitation was the scientific consensus on evolution. One example is so-called poly- acceptance of action at a distance. This led to a new way of thinking strate fossils, i.e. fossils (often tree trunks) that extend vertically in physics that was later codified with the introduction of the over more than one geological stratum. Such fossils may seem to notion of a field (by Michael Faraday in 1849) (Weinberg, 1977). speak in favour of a diluvial account of sediment formation, but However, action at a distance was perceived by many as unbe- they have a well founded geological explanation (rapid sedimen- lievable, perhaps even irrational. The Swiss physicist Georges-Louis tation around a fossilized tree trunk) (Gastaldo, Stevanoviç-Walls, & Le Sage (1724e1803) proposed that gravitational forces are the Ware, 2004). Another example is sites where geological strata effects of a large number of small, invisible particles that put appear out of order, with strata classified as older lying above strata pressure on physical bodies (Aronson, 1964). This might have been classified as younger. This is explained by well-known natural a reasonable hypothesis in the 18th century, but it was no longer so phenomena, namely folds and faults, for which evidence can be in the 20th century. However, it has been immensely popular found on sites of “inverted” strata (Matson, 2002; Schafersman, among private researchers opposing relativity theory, many of 1983). In addition, evolution deniers perform another type of whom have elaborated it in various ways, unperturbed by the cherry-picking. Their literature is full of quotations by evolution devastating criticism that was raised against it already in the scientists arguing against some other scientist’s view on exactly nineteenth century (Wazeck, 2009, pp. 143e166). how evolution has taken place. By truncation and misrepresenta- The anti-evolution literature is full of arguments that have since tion of these quotations (so-called quote-mining), they are pre- long been thoroughly refuted but are still being used as proof that sented as evidence that these scientists cast doubt on whether (not evolution has not taken place. This is exemplified by the pictures of how) evolution took place (Cracroft, 1983, p. 180). This is about as fossilized tracks of dinosaurs and humans beside each other that sensible as it would be to use disagreements among historians on have allegedly been found in the limestone beds of Paluxy River in exactly what happened on the Western Front in to Texas. These claims have been perpetuated in spite of convincing argue that the war actually did not take place. evidence that although the dinosaur tracks are genuine, the adja- Cherry-picking of evidence has an equally prominent role in the cent tracks are “made with human hands instead of human feet” argumentation of climate science denialists. They also “[d]raw on (Weber, 1981, p. 17; cf.; Milne & Schafersman, 1983). Another isolated papers that challenge the consensus view and neglect the example is the claim that the human eye is so complex that it could broader body of supported by hundreds of papers” (Liu, not have come about through evolution. This is based on the 2012, p. 130). For instance, the Information Council on the Envi- assumption that a complete eye should have resulted from a single ronment (created and funded by the energy industry) used event in a species with no prior form of light perception. However, anomalous local temperature trends that differ from the global as Darwin himself wrote in On the Origin of Species (chapter 6), the trends as “evidence” that global warming has not taken place eye must have evolved in multiple stages beginning with light- (Tucker, 2012, pp. 846e847). Another example is the use of the year sensitive cells, in a sequence where each step had evolutionary 1998 as a starting point for describing temperature trends. Since advantage (Cf. Nilsson & Pelger, 1994). Yet another example is the this was an unusually hot year, this creates the illusion of much less chronology claims of young Earth creationism that have since long global warming in recent years than what has actually taken place been most thoroughly refuted by radiometric dating (Abell 1983). (Mazo, 2013, p. 43). Quote-mining similar to that performed by The same pattern can be seen in climate science denialism. As creationists has also been a prominent strategy of climate science noted by Stephen Weart, “[t]he old claims that the carbon dioxide denialists, for instance in the so-called Climategate event in 2009 spectra was saturated, that urban heat explained the observed (Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, Smith, & Dawson, 2013,p. global warming, and a hundred others, long since refuted, kept 819). convincing novice readers that claims of global warming were nonsense.” (Weart, 2011, p. 46) A further example is the recurring claim that the currently ongoing warming of the Earth results from 3.2. Neglect of refuting information changes in solar activity rather than from human activities. Extensive studies have shown this to be unsubstantiated (Foukal, Science evolves with time, and the assimilation of new knowl- Frohlich, Spruit, & Wigley, 2006; Lockwood, 2012). A website edge refuting what was previously believed is an essential part of devoted to scientific information about refuted arguments by fi the scienti c process. Pseudoscientists are remarkably reluctant to climate science denialists lists 193 such arguments (http://www. 2 give up their cherished ideas. For instance, homeopathy is still skepticalscience.com/argument.php). Weart (2011) called them unaffected by the knowledge obtained in chemistry in the last two “zombie arguments” since they are “dead arguments raised from centuries. The same penchant for holding on to refuted claims can their graves” to be used against the conclusions drawn in legitimate be seen in all our three examples of science denialism. science. A major reason why they can be repeatedly resurrected is In many cases, the outdated ideas that pseudoscientists fail to that the denialists publish in non-peer-reviewed media. In peer abandon are entrenched everyday conceptions that science has reviewed literature, refuted claims do not have much of a chance to made obsolete (Boudry, Blancke, & Pigliucci, 2015). Relativity the- be reused in this way (Dunlap & Jacques, 2013; Hansson, 2016). ory denialism is an example of this. Its adherents refuse to give up old, intuitively appealing, ideas on physics that have become un- 3.3. Fabrication of fake controversies tenable due to the accumulated scientific evidence. Perhaps sur- prisingly, most of the adversaries of relativity theory in the 1920s When unable to convince their audience that only their own ’ ’ and 1930s did not revert from Einstein s to Newton s physics. views are worth taking seriously, science denialists have adopted the strategy of claiming that the issue is open and subject to a genuine scientific controversy. To achieve this they only have to 2 As an anonymous referee pointed out to me, there is a close connection be- convince decision-makers that their standpoint is credible enough tween neglect of refuting information and the previous characteristic, cherry- to be taken seriously. When NASA reports that a spaceship has picking. If you allow yourself to pick only the information that you like, then in- formation that contradicts the claims you want to make will be left out. These two orbited around the earth, neither the American Congress nor media characteristics can be seen as two sides of the same coin. call in a representative from the Society to defend the 42 S.O. Hansson / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 63 (2017) 39e47 alternative view that the spaceship had circled around the rim of a claim is provisionally accepted (provisionally not doubted), or in flat earth. From a scientific point of view, it is equally unjustified to other words that it is taken for given by the community of scientists invite creationists or climate “contrarians” when evolution or until some new information turns up that gives grounds for climate science is discussed. However, this may not be easy for doubting it. The provisionality of scientific acceptance also requires decisions-makers or the public to recognize, not least since it is that such information is taken seriously and leads to open-minded difficult for the scientifically untrained to “grasp the difference reconsiderations of the issue.3 Decisions on what to accept provi- between the results of a single study, a handful of studies, and a sionally in this sense are immensely important in science, but yet scientific consensus, and such distinctions are not always they are made in a very informal way that is often difficult to ac- communicated clearly by the media.” (Holtcamp, 2012;A316) count for. In spite of this, it is a process with strict standards of These are difficulties that science denialists have often exploited in evidence. The onus of proof falls to those who want a new claim to a skilful way. be provisionally accepted, for instance by acknowledging a previ- The deniers of relativity theory have spent considerable efforts ously unproven phenomenon, or by introducing a new scientific on creating the impression that they are serious contenders against theory. These strict standards are necessary in order to ensure a science. For instance, the American anti-relativist reasonably steady progress in science. If we accepted new ideas too Arvid Reuterdahl incessantly told the public that there was a rashly, then the collective of scientists would too often go jointly in huge debate going on in science, in which the proponents of rela- the wrong direction, and scientific progress would be blocked by tivity theory were pushed back (Wazeck, 2009, pp. 268e269). mistaken assumptions. On the other hand there are limits to how The original strategy of American creationists was to have cre- high the entry requirements can be. Since we cannot leave every- ationism taught in public schools as the only account of the origin thing open we will have to take some risks of being wrong. “Asking of life. In 1968 the US Supreme Court ruled that a 1928 Arkansas for total certainty is based on a rather outdated view of science . statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional. and in effect asks for the impossible. ” (Nerlich, 2010, p. 433). After that creationists changed their strategies and made demands It is an essential component of the ethos of science that the for “equal time” in schools their hallmark. The campaign for “equal standards for scientific acceptance should be fairly uniform and time” was much advanced by Ronald Reagan’s statement in his that they should not be influenced by ideology or wishful thinking. 1980 presidential campaign that evolution “is a scientific theory In sharp contrast to this, all three groups of denialists have a record only”, that it has “great flaws”, and that “if it was going to be taught of applying deviant criteria for assent to scientific claims. They have in the schools, then I think that also the biblical theory of creation, all put up tailor-made criteria for their enemy theories that are which is not a theory but the biblical story of creation, should also almost impossible to satisfy. be taught.” (Holden, 1980). One of the major criticisms that opponents voiced against rel- From its very beginning, the proponents of climate science ativity theory in the 1920s and 1930s was that the theory was not denialism have also demanded “equal time”, but in public media sufficiently transpicuous (“anschaulich”)(Wazeck, 2009, pp. 183e rather than in schools. From the tobacco industry they learnt the 190). In Germany, the focal point of anti-relativity, attempts were craft of “manufacturing uncertainty” (Dunlap & Jacques, 2013; made to create a special “German physics” (deutsche Physik) that Oreskes & Conway, 2010), i.e. creating the impression of a legiti- would be transpicuous, and therefore also free from the mathe- mate scientific controversy when there is none. Some of their matical complexities of general relativity. Both Einstein and Planck means to achieve this will be discussed in Section 4. The employ- argued against the idea that physics had to be transpicuous, and ment of this strategy seems to have been highly successful in the Einstein also pointed out that what people consider to be tran- . A detailed content analysis has shown that after spicuous shifts with time (Wazeck, 2009, pp. 183e184). In addition, 1995, newspaper reporters started to create a “balance” between anti-relativists required absolute certainty in matters concerning legitimate climate science and allegedly scientific alternative views the nature of time and space, something that is impossible for represented by denialist organizations (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2004). A physicists recognizing that these are empirical issues. similar “balance” between scientific and non-scientific views on Anti-evolutionists have devised several ways to heighten the climate change was created in American television news. Conse- demands on evidence for evolution. One of these is to require quently, “through adherence to the journalistic norm of ‘balanced experimental evidence in issues for which no experimental evi- reporting’, television news coverage of anthropogenic climate dence is possible. The evolution of new species in organisms with a change actually perpetrates an informational bias by significantly comparatively slow reproductive cycle, such as mammals and birds, diverging from the consensus view in climate science that human cannot in practice be demonstrated in experiments since such ex- activities contribute to climate change” (Boykoff, 2008, p. 1). News periments would take too long time (Raup, 1983, pp. 160e161). reporting in other countries, including Britain and Australia, ex- Furthermore, the creationist notion of a species (“created kind”)is hibits the same pattern (McKewon, 2012, p. 277). This is an effect of constructed in such a way that creationists never have to a resourceful campaign that deliberately promulgates a false pic- acknowledge the emergence of a new species (Cracroft, 1983). New ture of the state of science. species have been obtained experimentally through evolution for instance in Drosophila (fruit flies), but creationists claim that these new life forms were not new species (Dobzhansky & Pavlovsky, 3.4. Deviant criteria of assent 1971; Weinberg, Starczak, & Jörg, 1992). Climate science denialists place excessive emphasis on possible As science progresses, new data and insights are accepted by the sources of error in evidence supporting the mainstream view, community of scientists. However, such acceptance does not imply whereas argumentation purportedly supporting the denialist view that these new statements are taken to be true with certainty. are taken at face value. For instance, denialists put unreasonable Acceptance of a new claim in empirical science means that this demands on temperature information from periods before the thermometer was invented, and (much like the opponents of general relativity) they oppose the use of complex mathematical 3 Individual scientists who investigate what most colleagues believe to be too models as a means to understand complex natural phenomena implausible hypotheses can often have a positive role in the development of sci- e ence, provided that they perform these investigations in an unprejudiced way. Cf. (Diethelm & McKee, 2009, pp. 2 3). This pattern has been called Kitcher, 1993, esp. pp. 68e72. S.O. Hansson / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 63 (2017) 39e47 43

“asymmetry of scientific challenge” (Freudenburg & Muselli, 2013, there are many examples in which the evidence that disproves p. 777). pseudoscientific claims is easily accessible and understandable. The The same strategy of asymmetry has also been employed by the fact that standard homeopathic dilutions remove every molecule of tobacco industry throughout its various campaigns against legiti- the allegedly active substance is a case in point (Baum & Ernst, mate medical science. For instance, scientific hirelings of the to- 2009; Hansson, 2013b), and so are the experiments showing that bacco industry have argued that epidemiological evidence should dowsers fail when they are deprived of all sensory clues to the be systematically disregarded unless it presents very high odds location of the target of their search (Vogt & Hyman, 2000). In the ratios or relative risks (Ong & Glantz, 2001, p. 1751). The same many cases when the scientific consensus is based on (strong but) requirement has also been raised by industry-affiliated pseudo- less directly accessible evidence, this is a pedagogical difficulty that scientists lobbying against reductions in human exposure to other pseudoscientists are eager to exploit. toxic substances (Rudén & Hansson, 2008, pp. 300-301 Samet & Burke, 2001; Francis et al., 2006). These and other re- 4.3. Lack of competence interpretations of science by the tobacco industry would make many health risks with a considerable death toll, including passive In all three cases the vast majority of the leading denialists are smoking, immune against risk reduction measures. “private researchers” without the academic credentials required to Due to the close connections between the tobacco industry and become a researcher or teacher in the respective area at a reputable climate science denialists (Oreskes & Conway, 2010) it is plausible university. Only in rare cases have qualified researchers in the that the strategy of asymmetric scientific challenge was consciously pertinent areas become supporters of denialism (Cook et al., 2016). transferred from the former to the latter. That it is a consciously Of the three areas, relativity theory denialism has had the chosen strategy can be seen from a document from the George H.W. largest participation of qualified researchers. They had in fact no Bush administration in 1990 stating that it was “not beneficial to less than three Nobel Prize laureates in physics among their ranks, discuss whether there is or is not” global warming. The reason was namely Philipp Lenard (1862e1947), Johannes Stark (1874e1957), that “[i]n the eyes of the public, we will lose this debate. A better and Charles Édouard Guillaume (1861e1938). However, none of approach is to raise the many uncertainties that need to be better these had a strong standing in the international community of understood on this issue.” (Shabecoff, 1990) This strategy was car- physicists. Lenard and Stark were isolated both due to their deviant ried through both in his own presidency and in that of his son ideas on physics and their staunch Nazism (Beyerchen, 1977; (Leduc, 2007, pp. 261e262). Hentschel & Hentschel, 1996; Wazeck, 2009). Guillaume received the prize for his applied studies of nickel-steel alloys. His prize was 4. Ten sociological characteristics controversial and he never had a strong standing in mainstream physics (Cahn, 2005; Friedman, 2002). This section will present some other characteristics shared by Among the opponents of climate science, and in particular, those the three groups of science denialists. These characteristics have of evolution theory, the participation of competent scientists has much less epistemological significance than the four discussed in been much smaller. Extremely few of the vocal creationists have Section 3, but they can contribute to our understanding of science any relevant degree. “Scientific expertise” in creationism is pri- denialism as a social phenomenon. marily provided by persons who have degrees in natural unrelated to evolution or in engineering. 4.1. The enemy theory threatens the denialists’ worldview The situation is similar in climate science denialism (Abraham et al., 2014; Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010). Most of In all three cases, the enemy theory threatens the denialists’ the leading contrarians have no expertise in climate science. They worldviews and their ingrained conceptions about the world. Rel- entered this field as the result of “the recruitment and funding of ativity theory was (and is) a challenge to common sense. It shows scientists (of any discipline) skilled at public relations and willing to that we inhabit a world that we are not cognitively well equipped to oppose the ‘conventional’ viewpoint on climate change” (Tucker, fully understand. Quantum theory does this to an arguably even 2012, p. 845). larger extent, and additional developments in physics have brought us even further away from the transpicuous ideal of the relativity 4.4. A remarkable male dominance denialists. Evolution theory is of course primarily a threat to traditional , in most cases to a literalist variant of protestant A remarkable feature of the denialist literature is its male Christianity. Climate science creates problems for certain views on dominance. Only two women seem to have been involved in the politics and lifestyles, in particular for views that oppose the po- anti-relativity movement of the 1920s and 1930s. One of them litical interferences with businesses and lifestyles that are associ- (Margarete von Oppell-Patschke) was married to a prominent male ated with demands for less CO2 emissions. denialist, after whose death she wrote a pamphlet trying to defend his views (Wazeck, 2009, pp. 55, 150e151). Women are equally rare 4.2. The enemy theory is complex and difficult to understand both in evolution denialism and climate science denialism. This is particularly remarkable in the former case. There is a comparatively Both relativity theory (in particular general relativity) and strong presence of women in the legitimate biological sciences, but climate science are based on non-trivial mathematics, which makes they are virtually absent from the activities of evolution denialism them inaccessible to the vast majority of the public. Both evolution and creationism. This male dominance is difficult to explain, but as theory and climate science are built on huge collections of data and Maarten Boudry pointed out to me, the audacity of claiming that theoretical considerations from a wide range of disciplines. It is one understands a subject better than all the experts may conform difficult to grasp how all these data combine to provide strong better with male then female stereotypes. support for the respective theory. In all three cases, the inaccessi- bility of the evidence makes the theory vulnerable to attacks 4.5. Inability to publish in peer-reviewed media following the strategies mentioned in Section 3. It could be argued that all of science is complex and difficult to All three groups of science denialists exhibit a remarkable fail- understand, which would make this an empty criterion. However, ure to publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This applied also 44 S.O. Hansson / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 63 (2017) 39e47 to the few enemies of relativity theory that were established the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research physicists, even the Nobel laureates. Colleagues judged their writ- and the . Both creationists and climate science ings on relativity as substandard, in spite of their (previous) valu- denialists have spent considerable resources on the creation of able contributions to other parts of physics. Therefore their anti- websites promoting their views, and the latter have even gone as relativity texts were rejected by the physics journals (Wazeck, far as to set up a “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate 2009, pp. 242e267) The situation is similar for the opponents of Change (NIPCC)” that issues reports mimicking those of the IPCC (in evolution theory and climate science; both groups have failed form, but certainly not in scientific quality). almost completely to publish in peer-reviewed journals. This stands In a strikingly similar way, all three denialist movements have in sharp contrast to their own avowals of the scientific quality of used petitions of scientists as a means to portray their views as well their claims (Scott & Cole, 1985; Anderegg et al., 2010; Abraham supported in science. In all these cases, the scientific credentials of et al., 2014). most petitioners were unrelated to the issue at hand. In 1931, a pamphlet against relativity theory, Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein 4.6. Conspiracy theories (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein) was published in Leipzig (Wazeck, 2009, pp. 356e361). (According to an oft-told but seem- The leading proponents of these denialist movements have all ingly unsubstantiated anecdote, Einstein retorted: “If I were wrong, claimed that their failure to get published in peer-reviewed jour- then one would have been enough to refute me.”) nals is due to some type of conspiracy which has also prevented In 2001 the anti-evolutionist Discovery Institute published a them more generally from gaining the recognition they deserve. petition signed by 100 scientists, called “A Scientific Dissent From The opposition to relativity theory in the 1920s and 1930s was Darwinism”. As noted in a press report, the signatories include “few dominated by anti-Semites who saw relativity theory as part of a biologists but many evangelicals” (Chang, 2006). In 2007 a petition larger Jewish conspiracy. They were convinced that the established against climate science was sent to the United Nations with the physics journals and physics societies were all under Jewish control rubric “100 Prominent Scientists ask the UN to Stop the Fear Mon- (Wazeck, 2009, pp. 271e292). Creationists tend to see an atheist gering and Get Down to Work” (http://www.globalwarminghoax. and/or devilish conspiracy (Boudry & Braeckman, 2011, p. 155). com/news.php?extend.44). Another petition directed against There is even a book from 1991 with the title “The evolution con- climate science identifies anyone as a “scientist” who has a Bachelor spiracy”. Climate science denialists tend to see a “liberal conspir- of Science (http://www.petitionproject.org). acy” (Aldhous, 2011). In an extensive study of more than 100 books denying the of anthropogenic climate change, Dunlap and 4.9. Fierce attacks on legitimate scientists Jacques concluded: “Strikingly, many of these books not only pro- vide fallacious critiques of climate science but also present an All three denialist movements have engaged in vicious personal alternate reality in which global warming is a created by a attacks on individual scientists. A large part, probably the majority, conspiracy of supposedly greedy scientists, liberal politicians, and of the anti-relativists of the 1920s and 1930s were anti-Semites, environmentalists.” (Dunlap & Jacques, 2013, p. 713). and their anti-Semitic attacks against Einstein were virulent enough to prevent him from visiting Germany (Wazeck, 2009, pp. 4.7. Appeals directly to the public 271e292). The foremost American anti-relativist, Arvid Reuterdahl, was also an anti-Semite. Prominent defenders of both evolution When failing to publish in scientific journals, science denialists and climate science have found themselves subjected to various in all three categories have turned directly to the public. At the peak kinds of harassment and threats (Egen & Keys, 1999; Gleick, 2010; of anti-relativity actitivities in the interwar period, numerous Salinger, 2010; Wright & Mann, 2013). pamphlets defaming relativity theory were printed, and a large number of articles with similar content appeared in the popular press (Wazeck, 2009, pp. 34e36, 252e258). In America the most 4.10. Strong political connections important outlet of these ideas was the ferociously anti-Semitic Dearborn Independent that was one of the nation’s largest news- These three forms of science denialism all have strong political papers (Wazeck, 2009, pp. 255e257). Today, both anti-evolution connections. As already mentioned, a large part of the anti- activists and the opponents of climate science disseminate their relativists were anti-Semites and Nazis. In Germany, Nazi news- views primarily in books, pamphlets, and webpages intended for papers attacked relativity theory whereas democratic newspapers the general public (Dunlap & Jacques, 2013). From the viewpoint of (as long as they existed) mostly defended it (Wazeck, 2009, pp. public understanding of science it is a serious problem that writers 257e258). Today, denial of relativity theory does not seem to be who get their science published in good scientific journals are connected with Nazism, but in the USA it has connections with much less prone to write for the general public than those whose right-wing politics. Conservapedia, an -based right-wing manuscripts are almost invariably rejected by the scientific dictionary, features articles attacking relativity theory (as well as journals. evolution and climate science). The political connections of the other two forms of denialism are 4.8. Pretence to have a much larger support in science well known. Evolution denialism is dominated by a Christian right wing that seeks confirmation of its fundamentalist convictions. Science denialists of all three kinds try to shape the impression Climate change denialism is dominated by a more business- that they have much more support within science than what they oriented right that opposes the government interferences in busi- actually have. For this purpose they create institutes, conferences, ness that the results of climate science are commonly taken to and sometimes even journals with impressive scientific names but justify. There is a strong correlation between political views and devoted to science denial. The “ of Nations” founded in the beliefs on climate change. In the United States, belief in climate United States in 1921, allegedly as an international scientific orga- change rose among Democrats from 60% in 2000 to 70% in 2010, nization, was the most important such construction by anti- whereas it decreased among Republicans from 49 to 29% in the relativists (Wazeck, 2009, pp. 310e328). Creationists have same period (McCright & Dunlap, 2011,p.176;McCright, Dunlap, & launched a plethora of allegedly scientific organizations including Xiao, 2014). S.O. Hansson / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 63 (2017) 39e47 45

One might expect this political one-sidedness to be specific for reason. Someone who wishes to promote a theory or claim usually these examples, and balanced out by other forms of science deni- gains from describing it as conformable to mainstream science. In alism that are dominated by the political left. However, no evidence contrast, for someone who wishes to denigrate a part of main- seems to be available to confirm that this is so. Two forms of science stream science it would seem necessary to describe it as denial have often been taken to be predominantly left-wing, controversial. namely disbelief in the scientific evidence confirming the safety Among the criteria mentioned in the literature on pseudosci- of vaccination and the safety of genetically modified food. However, ence there is at least one with epistemic significance that appears in neither case is the presumed connection with leftist politics not to be satisfied by science denialism, namely belief in author- corroborated by the evidence. The available data indicates that both ities. Many of the more prominent pseudoscientific theories are anti-vaccination and anti-GM standpoints are either equally com- dominated by an individual who usually founded the movement mon on both sides or somewhat more common on the right wing and whose words are still taken to be the highest wisdom. Samuel (Berinsky, 2012; Ceccoli & Hixon, 2012; Hamilton, Hartter, & Saito, Hahnemann in homeopathy, Rudolf Steiner in anthroposophy, L. 2015; Legge & Durant, 2010; Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Oberauer, Ron Hubbard in scientology, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in Transcen- 2013). dental Meditation, and Erich von Däniken in ancient astronaut theory are some of the best known examples. There does not seem 5. Comparison to pseudotheory promotion to be any similar examples of dominant persons in science denial. Therefore, such dominance seems to be a characteristic of pseu- There is a considerable literature on the characteristics of doscientific theory promotion in contradistinction to science pseudoscience, usually couched in terms of the demarcation be- denial. (However, not all forms of pseudotheory promotion have tween science and pseudoscience (For overviews, see Mahner, this characteristic. It also seems to be absent from 2007; Hansson, 2008.). This literature can be divided into two that promote a theory supporting traditional religion, such as sin- parts representing different approaches. One part is concerned donology and so-called biblical and Mormon archaeology.) with finding an overarching, time-independent criterion that dis- Many of the sociological characteristics of science denialism tinguishes science from pseudoscience. Prominent criteria that mentioned in Section 4 are also characteristic of pseudotheory have been proposed are falsifiability, puzzle-solving capacity, promotion. This applies for instance to lack of competence, inability integration with other sciences, and inclusion in a progressive to publish in peer-reviewed media, conspiracy theories, appeals research programme. However, as I have argued elsewhere, in or- directly to the public, and pretence to have a much larger support in der to be applicable across disciplines and epochs, such criteria science than they actually have. However, some of the above- have to be so general that they cannot be used successfully to mentioned characteristics of science denial seem to be less prom- determine in individual, concrete cases if a practice or theory is inent in pseudotheory promotion. For instance, the gender distri- scientific or pseudoscientific(Hansson, 2009; 2013a). The other bution among promoters of pseudoscientific theories is a rather approach is more practice-oriented and presents less grandiose mixed story; although some pseudotheories such as ufology seem criteria that are considered to be signs of pseudoscience rather than to have predominantly male activists others such as therapeutic necessary and sufficient criteria of demarcation. A large number of touch appear to be dominated by women. Furthermore, most forms lists of (usually 5e10) such criteria have been published. (For ref- of pseudotheory promotion seem to lack a strong connection with erences to such lists, see Hansson, 2008.) Judging by the examples politics. used in the literature presenting these lists, they have been developed with a main focus on the forms of pseudoscience that we 6. Conclusion called in Section 2 pseudotheory promotion, rather than on science denial. In conclusion, our comparison shows that these three forms of Two of the four epistemic characteristics mentioned in Section 3 science denialism have strikingly similar features in spite of being are commonly found on such general lists of characteristics of devoted to quite different enemy theories. Many of these charac- pseudoscience, namely cherry-picking and the neglect of refuting teristics are shared by other forms of pseudoscience, and our study information. (Hansson, 2008) There are abundant examples of how has confirmed the pseudoscientific nature of science denialism. theory-promoting pseudosciences satisfy these criteria. The use of However, we have also seen that science denialism has some deviant criteria of assent does not seem to have been mentioned in characteristics of its own that are not shared by pseudotheory any of these lists, but arguably it should have been mentioned. promotion, in particular its persistent fabrication of fake contro- Theory-promoting pseudoscientists apply remarkably weak criteria versies, the extraordinary male dominance among its activists, and of assent to their own claims. For instance, proponents of pseudo- its strong connection with various forms of right-wing politics. scientific medical theories such as homeopathy, herbal medicine, The scientific response to science denialism has to take these and chiropractic, consider their therapies to be efficient on the basis characteristics into account. As scientists we should not try to fill of data that would be grossly insufficient in conventional, science- the roles that science denialists have allotted to us on their agenda. based medicine (Singh & Ernst, 2008). We should not act as if the denialists’ fake controversies were real The fourth of our epistemic criteria, the fabrication of fake controversies, and neither should we accept the deviant criteria of controversies, is notably absent from the usual lists of criteria of scientific assent that they try to impose on us. Our task is instead to pseudoscience. More importantly, most cases of pseudotheory expose their strategies, their agenda, and the pseudoscientific promotion do not seem to involve the manufacture of fake con- characteristics of their argumentation. And above all it is our task to troversies. For instance, advocates of homeopathy and anthro- explain what science really is, why it should not be politicized, and posophical medicine tend to avoid controversies with science. how it can provide humanity with a better common understanding Instead, they commonly claim that their practices are compatible of the world we are living in. with medical science and science-based clinical medicine, at least in the sense that the two “paradigms” can allegedly coexist without Acknowledgement conflict. The fabrication of fake controversies seems to be an epistemic characteristic that distinguishes science denialism from This article was written as part of the project Mind the Gap e pseudoscientific theory promotion, and this for a fairly obvious Delay Mechanisms and Goal Failures in Swedish Environmental Policy 46 S.O. Hansson / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 63 (2017) 39e47 that is funded by the Swedish Research Council Formas (grant Hansson, Sven Ove (2008). Science and pseudo-science. In The Stanford Encyclopedia 2014-595 211). I would like to thank Karin Edvardsson Björnberg, of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science Hansson, Sven Ove (2009). Cutting the Gordian Knot of demarcation. International Maarten Boudry, Angelo Fasce, Jesper Jerkert, and Markku Rum- Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23, 237-243. mukainen for valuable comments on an earlier version. Hansson, Sven Ove (2013a). Defining pseudoscience e and science. In , & Maarten Boudry (Eds.), The Philosophy of Pseudoscience (pp. 61-77). Chicago: Chicago University Press. References Hansson, Sven Ove (2013b). Homeopathy and consumers right to know. Journal of Internal Medicine, 274, 493. Abel, George O. (1983). The ages of the earth and the universe. In Laurie R. Godfrey Hansson, Sven Ove (2015). Science and technology: What they are and why their (Ed.), Scientists confront creationism (pp. 33-47). New York: Norton. relation matters. In Sven Ove Hansson (Ed.), The Role of Technology in Science. Abraham, John P., . (2014). Review of the consensus and asymmetric quality of Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 11-23). Dordrecht: Springer. research on human-induced climate change. Cosmopolis, 1, 3-18. Hansson, Sven Ove (2016). Zombie arguments in philosophy. Theoria, 82(3), 215- Aldhous, Peter (2011). Science in America: Changing perspectives. New Scientist, 216. 212(2836), 42-45. Hentschel, Klaus, & Hentschel, Ann M. (1996). Physics and national socialism: An Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility anthology of primary sources. Basel: Birkhäuser. in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(27), Holden, Constance (1980). Republican candidate picks fight with Darwin. Science, 12107-12109. 209(4462), 1214. Aronson, Samuel (1964). The gravitational theory of Georges-Louis Le Sage. Natural Holtcamp, Wendee (2012). Flavors of uncertainty: The difference between Denial , 3, 53-74. and Debate. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(8), A314-A319. Barnes, Deborah E., & Bero, Lisa A. (1998). Why review articles on the health effects Kent, Stephen A. (1999). The globalization of scientology: Influence, control and of passive smoking reach different conclusions. Jama, 279(19), 1566-1570. opposition in transnational markets. Religion, 29(2), 147-169. Baum, Michael, & Ernst, Edzard (2009). Should we maintain an open mind about Kirkpatrick, Lisa D. (2000). Forgetting the Lessons of History: The evolution of homeopathy? American Journal of Medicine, 122(11), 973-974. creationism and current trends to restrict the teaching of evolution in public Berinsky, Adam (2012). Public support for vaccination remains strong. YouGov: schools. Drake Law Review, 49, 125-145. What the World Thinks. https://today.yougov.com/news/2012/12/05/public- Kitcher, Philip (1993). The advancement of science. Science without legend, objectivity support-vaccination-remains-strong without illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beyerchen, Alan D. (1977). Scientists under Hitler: Politics and the physics community Leduc, Timothy B. (2007). Fuelling America’s climatic apocalypse. Worldviews: in the Third Reich. New Haven: Yale University Press. Global , Culture, and Ecology, 11(3), 255-283. Boudry, Maarten, Blancke, Stefaan, & Braeckman, Johan (2010). Irreducible inco- Legge, Jerome S., Jr., & Durant, Robert F. (2010). Public opinion, risk assessment, and herence and : A look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseu- biotechnology: Lessons from attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the doscience. Quarterly Review of Biology, 85(4), 473-482. European Union. Review of Policy Research, 27, 59-76. Boudry, Maarten, Blancke, Stefaan, & Pigliucci, Massimo (2015). What makes weird Leiserowitz, Anthony A., Maibach, Edward W., Roser-Renouf, Connie, beliefs thrive? The epidemiology of pseudoscience. Philosophical Psychology, 28, Smith, Nicholas, & Dawson, Erica (2013). Climategate, public opinion, and the 1177-1198. loss of trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 818-837. Boudry, Maarten, & Braeckman, Johan (2011). Immunizing strategies and epistemic Lewandowsky, Stephan, Gignac, Gilles E., & Oberauer, Klaus (2013). The role of defense mechanisms. Philosophia, 39(1), 145-161. conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS Boykoff, M. T. (2008). Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of One, 8(10), e75637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637. anthropogenic climate change, 1995e2004. Climatic Change, 86, 1-11. Liu, Dennis W. C. (2012). Science denial and the science classroom. CBE-life Sciences Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US Education, 11(2), 129-134. prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125-136. Lockwood, Mike (2012). Solar influence on global and regional climates. Surveys in Cahn, Robert W. (2005). An unusual Nobel Prize. Notes and Records of the Royal Geophysics, 33(3e4), 503-534. Society, 59(2), 145-153. Mahner, Martin (2007). Demarcating science from non-science. In Theo Kuipers Ceccoli, Stephen, & Hixon, William (2012). Explaining attitudes toward genetically (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science: General philosophy of science e focal modified foods in the European Union. International Political Science Review, 33, issues (pp. 515-575). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 301-319. Matson, Dave E. (2002). How good are those Young-Earth arguments?. http://www. Chang, Kenneth (February 21, 2006). Few biologists but many evangelicals sign anti- talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html evolution petition. New York Times. Mazo, Jeffrey (2013). Climate change: Strategies of denial. Survival, 55(4), 41-49. Cook, John, . (2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates McCright, Aaron M., & Dunlap, Riley E. (2011). The politicization of climate change on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001e2010. 048002. Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155-194. Cracroft, Joel (1983). Systematics, comparative biology, and the case against crea- McCright, Aaron M., Dunlap, Riley E., & Xiao, Chenyang (2014). Increasing influence tionism. In Laurie R. Godfrey (Ed.), Scientists confront creationism (pp. 163-191). of party identification on perceived scientific agreement and support for gov- New York: Norton. ernment action on climate change in the United States, 2006e12. Weather, Diethelm, Pascal, & McKee, Martin (2009). Denialism: What is it and how should Climate, and Society, 6(2), 194-201. scientists respond? European Journal of , 19(1), 2-4. McKewon, Elaine (2012). Talking points ammo: The use of neoliberal think tank Dobzhansky, Th, & Pavlovsky, O. (1971). Experimentally created incipient species of fantasy themes to delegitimise scientific knowledge of climate change in Drosophila. Nature, 230, 289-292. Australian newspapers. Journalism Studies, 13(2), 277-297. Dunlap, Riley E., & Jacques, Peter J. (2013). books and con- Milne, David H., & Schafersman, Steven D. (1983). Dinosaur tracks, erosion marks and servative think tanks: Exploring the connection. American Behavioral Scientist, midnight chisel Work (but No human footprints) in the cretaceous limestone of 57(6), 699-731. the Paluxy River bed, Texas. Journal of Geological Education, 31(2), 111-123. Egen, Rachel, & Keys, Carol (1999). Sabotaging science: Creationist strategy in the ’90s. Montgomery, David R. (2012). The evolution of creationism. GSA Today (Geological Washington, D.C.: People For the American Way Foundation. https://www. Society of America), 22(11), 4-9. pfaw.org/sites/default/files/file_35.pdf Mooney, Chris (2005). The republican war on science. New York: Basic Books. Foukal, P., Frohlich, C., Spruit, H., & Wigley, T. M. L. (2006). Variations in solar lu- Nerlich, Brigitte (2010). ‘Climategate’: Paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis. minosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate. Nature, 443, 161-166. Environmental Values, 19.4, 419-442. Francis, John A., Shea, Amy K., & Samet, Jonathan M. (2006). Challenging the Nilsson, D.-E., & Pelger, S. (1994). A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: Tactics of tobacco industry expert eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 256, witnesses. Tobacco Control, 15(suppl. 4), iv68-iv76. 53-58. Freudenburg, William R., & Muselli, Violetta (2013). Reexamining climate change Ong, E., & Glantz, S. (2001). Constructing ‘sound science’ and ‘good epidemiology’: debates: Scientific disagreement or scientific certainty argumentation methods Tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms. American Journal of Public Health, (SCAMs)? American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 777-795. 91, 1749-1757. Friedman, R. M. (2002). Quantum theory and the Nobel Prize. Physics World, 15(8), Oreskes, Naomi, & Conway, Erik M. (2010). : How a handful of 33-38. scientists obscured the on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming.New Gastaldo, Robert A., Stevanoviç-Walls, Ivana, & Ware, William N. (2004). Erect for- York: Bloomsbury Press. ests are evidence for coseismic base-level changes in Pennsylvanian cyclothems Pigliucci, Massimo, & Boudry, Maarten (Eds.). (2013). The philosophy of pseudosci- of the Black Warrior Basin, U.S.A. In J. C. Pashin, & R. A. Gastaldo (Eds.), Sequence ence. Chicago: Chicago University Press. stratigraphy, paleoclimate, and tectonics of coal-bearing strata (pp. 219-238). Raup, David M. (1983). The geological and paleontological arguments of creation- AAPG Studies in Geology 51. ism. In Laurie R. Godfrey (Ed.), Scientists confront creationism (pp. 147-162). New Gleick, P. H. (2010). Climate change and the integrity of science. Science, 328, 689- York: Norton. 690. Rosenau, Joshua (2012). Science denial: A guide for scientists. Trends in Microbi- Hamilton, Lawrence C., Hartter, Joel, & Saito, Kei (2015). Trust in scientists on ology, 20(12), 567-569. climate change and vaccines. SAGE Open, 5(3), 2158244015602752. Rudén, Christina, & Hansson, Sven Ove (2008). Evidence based toxicology - ‘sound Hansson, Sven Ove (1996). Defining pseudoscience. Philosophia Naturalis, 33, 169- science’ in new disguise. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental 176. Health, 14(4), 299-306. S.O. Hansson / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 63 (2017) 39e47 47

Salinger, Jim (2010). The climate journey over three decades: From childhood to Turyshev, S. G., Toth, V. T., Kinsella, G., Lee, S.-C., Lok, S. M., & Ellis, J. (2012). “Support maturity, innocence to knowing, from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism .. for the thermal origin of the pioneer anomaly. Physical Review Letters, 108(24), Climatic Change, 100(1), 49-57. 241101. Samet, Jonathan M., & Burke, Thomas A. (2001). Turning science into junk: The Vogt, Evon Z., & Hyman, Ray (2000). Water witching U.S.A (2nd ed.). Chicago: Uni- tobacco industry and passive smoking. American Journal of Public Health, 91(11), versity of Chicago Press. 1742-1744. Wazeck, Milena (2009). Einsteins Gegner. Die öffentliche Kontroverse um die Rela- Schafersman, Steven (1983). Fossils, stratigraphy, and evolution: Consideration of a tivitätstheorie in den 1920er Jahren. Frankfurt: Campus. creationist argument. In Laurie R. Godfrey (Ed.), Scientists confront creationism Weart, Spencer (2011). Global warming: How skepticism became denial. Bulletin of (pp. 219-244). New York: Norton. the Atomic Scientists, 67(1), 41-50. Scott, Eugenie C., & Cole, Henry P. (1985). The elusive scientific basis of creation Weber, Christopher Gregory (1981). Paluxy maneThe creationist piltdown. Crea- ‘science’. Quarterly Review of Biology, 60, 21-30. tion/Evolution, 6, 16-22. Shabecoff, Philip (April 19, 1990). Bush denies putting off action on averting global Weinberg, James R., Starczak, Victoria R., & Jörg, Daniele (1992). Evidence for rapid climate shift. New York Times,B4. speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution, 46(4), 1214- Singh, Simon, & Ernst, Edzard (2008). Trick or treatment: The undeniable facts about 1220. alternative medicine. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Weinberg, Steven (1977). The search for unity: Notes for a history of Quantum Field Tucker, William C. (2012). Deceitful Tongues: Is climate change denial a crime. theory. Daedalus, 106(4), 17-35. Ecology Law Quarterly, 39, 831-894. Wright, Christopher, & Mann, Michael (2013). Future imaginings and the battle over climate science: An interview with Michael Mann. Organization, 20.5, 748-756.