On Skeptics and Deniers

Robert Mayer (comments section of this blog) raises the interesting question about the use of the term 'climate denier' to describe those who reject the evidence of climate change. His point is that it is disrespectful as it invokes the Holocaust deniers and one should use their preferred term 'skeptic'.

I in turn asked if he had made any objection to the frequent use of the term "believer" that the climate deniers use to refer to those who accept climate change. I hope he did, but regardless I think this is about both of these terms rather than one or the other.

First off, thanks to Mr Mayer as I had not thought this through very deeply, but once he raised it I asked myself when it is appropriate to use 'denier' and when to use 'skeptic' as they are near synonyms except i) a skeptic harbours doubts about what is true, whether the orthodoxy or some other concept, ii) for skeptic there is a sense of requiring strong or compelling evidence, and iii) in modernity 'denier' does evoke the Holocaust denier.

In looking at the definitions of both and various contexts in which they are used I would say that the term 'skeptic' is appropriate where there is reasoned and rational doubt, particularly when the doubter is not committed to any particular hypothesis, either the orthodoxy or another.

For example, while IQ tests are still widely used there is reasonable and rational doubt as to their efficacy or usefulness due to cultural biases, failure to recognize emotional intelligence, etc. Thus, while in a minority the doubters can reasonably be called skeptics as there is demonstrably rational and reasonable cause for their doubt.

A more interesting case involves religion, where the acceptance requires faith rather than relying on empirical, objective data, hence we use the term "believer".

Even though the acceptance is not necessarily reasonable or rational it is not therefore unreasonable or irrational to be religious because the whole construct of the divine unknown and the unknowable is that it does not necessarily manifest itself in ways that we can test or observe empirically. Thus a reasonable and rational person may be religious and is correctly known as a "believer"

Even so, it is possible to have reasonable and rational grounds for doubting a religion, and one who has such doubts may be called a skeptic. In this case there is no aspersion cast on either as one may reasonably and rationally be a believer, or one can have reasonable and rational cause to doubt i.e. be a skeptic.

In the religous example the skeptic is known as an agnostic while someone who is committed to denying the divine would be an atheist, ie a denier. The agnostic doubts, the atheist is certain, hence the difference.

We refer to those who reject the history of the Holocaust as 'deniers', why?

It would seem to me that it is because their doubt is neither reasonable nor rational. Their denial rests solely on their wish to believe that it was not so, on faith. In contrast to religious believers they rely on faith in a situation in which there is abundant empirical evidence and the framing of the whole notion of historical reality means that reason and rational thought are to be adduced from empirical evidence.

Given the staggering volume of empirical evidence that the Holocaust did indeed occur, and the absence of any credible evidence that it did not, it does not seem appropriate to legitimize these doubters with the perfectly honourable term 'skeptic'. Further, they are not in doubt about the Holocaust, they are firmly convinced that it did not occur. They are not skeptics, but rather champions of a competing, and in this instance absurd, hypothesis. Their use of faith as a reason for the rejection of the evidence without any competing reasonable or rational evidence for doubt quite justifiably earns them the title of 'deniers'.

It seems to me important that the basis of ones position is critical. If one accepts without evidence then one is a believer regardless of whether there is reasonable and rational evidence empirically supporting a hypothesis. Equally one is a denier if ones doubt is based solely on faith rather than on reasonable and rational doubt, particularly if one embraces a different hypothesis without doubt.

Turning to climate change, the label "believer" is clearly being used in an attempt to belittle those who accept climate change by suggesting there is no rational basis for their acceptance. There is in fact a staggering volume of empirical evidence for climate change.

This does not necessarily prove that climate change is "true", but nonetheless the evidence does exist, and further there are reasonable and rational reasons to accept it. As such to refer to those who accept it as "believers" is in fact a disrespectful slur.

As for the doubters, is their doubt based on reasonable and rational grounds? Or is it faith? and are they truly doubters? Or do they wholeheartedly embrace some other hypothesis?

While I can hardly claim to have done a comprehensive study of this group, everything I have seen of their "evidence" to date consists of misrepresentations, disingenuous and dishonest distortions of the evidence, egregious errors in logic, emotional appeals to embrace doubt because the consequences of acceptance are distasteful, caustic but nonetheless vacuous attacks on the empirical evidence, hypothesis' unsupported by any credible evidence or any evidence at all in many cases, and so on.

Further, they cannot really be called doubters as they champion the premise that there is no such thing as climate change, or that it is not anthropogenic. They are not skeptical, but rather zealots for a different hypothesis, in this case the orthodoxy of the old order, they are the rear guard for the old corrupt ideological regime.

There may well be reasonable and rational cause for doubt with respect to climate change. If and when I encounter individuals who substantiate their doubt with empirical evidence presented in a reasonable, rational, and honest fashion I will gladly and respectfully refer to them as skeptics.

I will continue to use 'denier' to refer to those who's doubt is based solely on an irrational and unreasonable faith, who zealously champion the premise that anthropogenic climate change is a fraud, and who not only do not require compelling evidence but actively reject it if it does not support their ideology .

As such I believe to date my use of the term 'denier' has been both fair and accurate.

Thanks for bringing this up, it has been interesting.