We live in turbulent times. The center of our society now feels an increasing erosion of democratic principles, the decay of our democracy is now a real danger. The risk exists alongside intolerance, homophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism, but also in a worrying denial of scientific facts.
In a functioning democracy, science plays a crucial role based on evidence-based knowledge as it forms the basis for rational political decisions. Science denial, on the other hand, means rejecting scientific findings and deliberately forgoing scientific methods to support certain ideologies, beliefs, or interests. Therefore, science denial poses a significant threat to democratic societies.
Not without reason was science denial a characteristic feature of the Nazi regime. Starting with the discrediting of Jewish scientists, the pseudoscientific racial doctrine that led to the discrimination and persecution of people based on their ethnic origin, and ending with the euthanasia program in which people with “worthless” physical or mental disabilities were systematically killed. This devastating distortion of science in the darkest chapter of our recent history underlines the necessity of separating science and research from ideology, following ethical and scientific principles, and decidedly opposing all approaches to science denial.
What characterizes science denial, what are the typical features?
- Science deniers tend to select scientific findings. Data that contradicts their beliefs is rejected. Conversely, they selectively choose data or studies (so-called cherry-picking of data) that support their position while ignoring other relevant information.
- Often (in cherry-picking and selective perception) pseudoscientific arguments or sources are used that do not meet the strict reviews and standards of established science.
- Scientific methods and standards are rejected with the claim that they are unreliable or manipulated by a supposed “mainstream” science.
- Science deniers try to use scientific consensus as an argument against a theory or hypothesis instead of addressing the underlying evidence. Here, there is also a smooth transition to conspiracy narratives.
- Instead of addressing the scientific arguments, some science deniers attack people who represent scientific findings and facts, for example by questioning their integrity or motivation.
Especially the personal attacks against scientists have unfortunately increased recently – especially when they express themselves on emotionally charged topics such as climate change or vaccinations. On social networks, they face massive verbal attacks, often with threats of physical violence. Such a development is absolutely unacceptable.
Of course – this is the nature of science – one can discuss scientific findings controversially – but one should not leave the factual level. Therefore, I would like to advocate checking statements on scientific topics always based on the above criteria and taking a clear stand against the discrediting of scientists.
Because science denial can lead to a deep divide in society by alienating groups with different opinions or beliefs from each other. This can contribute to a fragmented society and weaken the common basis for democratic discussions.
Of course, the principle of freedom of speech applies in a democracy. However, this should not lead to facts being ignored or distorted. Informed public dialogue and recognition of evidence-based research are crucial for the functioning of a democracy and overcoming the complex challenges of our society.
