I believe that the author of this paper paints a simplified view of the world, and the examples they draw on do not imply the conclusion they are proposing.<p>For example, in the case of big tobacco, the stance that "smoking is safe" may have more similarities to the "Covid-19 is an existential threat and we must do everything possible to minimize death". Why do I claim this? Well, both positions rely on dogma in the guise of science, both positions are the commonly accepted cannon of the time, and both positions are propped up by bureaucrats masquerading and scientists to further their own self interest.<p>I would advise readers to not see the world in such a black and white fashion. We should actively be discussing the scientific literature, disseminating facts and figures, and discussing how to prevent public health risk without infringing upon individual freedoms and causing economic (economic factors have a downstream health and human cost too, particularly those in lower socioeconomic strata) damage.<p>So in summary, science is not dogma. Science is a toolkit we use to investigate the natural world. Caricaturing those holding different worldviews as "science deniers" is not constructive to public discourse.<p>Be compassionate in your world-view, open-minded to new evidence, pragmatic about solutions, but do not yield your faculties for rational thought and skepticism to the "expert class".
Hear me out through this thought experiment.<p>It’s hypothetical but hear me out. Imagine that there is a new virus that affects the peoples in 20s and 30s much more than those in 60+. And imagine that for some reason we would have to combat it we would have to tank the stock market, the 401ks and the pensions. Would the ruling generation sacrifice thise to save the younger generation?<p>What I am trying to say is that maybe the COVID vaccine skeptics are not science deniers. Maybe they just know exactly what they are doing.
>denying scientific results<p>That's exactly what scientists often do when they reproduce experiments.<p>"Science denial", as it comes across in this headline to the common person, conveys an appeal to authority that scientific results are not to be questioned. This inversion of the scientific method is used to give consensus to scientific results that support the status quo.<p>In reality, questioning scientific results has always been a necessary part of the scientific method.
Science denial is not a thing. Good science by definition should be deniable and then provable.<p>The sign of bad science is that any challenge to the science is immediately disregarded as 'science denial'<p>Worse yet is when the activists or political folks take up a scientific issue and then blow it out of proportion demanding for their political policies be implemented OR ELSE. You ask them to prove it, and then history goes by and their proofs are literally disproven. What do they do? They act like the activists they are and just push on. That's not how science works.
Isn't Science Denial the main driver for more Science?<p>Wasn't in the beginning of the Pandemic consensus that masks didn't work? <a href="https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent" rel="nofollow">https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-abou...</a>
The history of the church in the middle ages provides an interesting comparison. Instead of technocratic experts, there were priests who claimed a monopoly on truthiness. Members of the laity or even academics like Galileo were declared heretics when they diverged from official truths.<p>Yes, smoking is bad for your health and tobacco companies famously worked to cover it up. Interestingly, they employed scientific studies (with credentialed scientists no less) in their attempts to downplay the risks of smoking.<p>The US gov. also employed scientists to buttress cannabis prohibition. Funding was made available for researchers who toed the line and denied to those who did not. After millions of arrests, CBD is now touted as the latest panacea. The DEA still lists cannabis as a schedule 1 substance with "no therapeutic value".<p>Then there are the experts who sold us the war in Iraq. Skeptics were labeled conspiracy theorists.<p>Media outlets parroted official narrative of the war in Iraq, the war on drugs and other elite promotions.<p>As a hypothetical, consider that climate change and COVID both give license for increased central planning. Observe that the research is funded largely by the same institutions which will gain power when these objectives are reached. Putting aside the contentious debate, both sides should be able to accept that there is a conflict of interest here.<p>Yes, we should look to history. There is a long history of experts, technocrats or otherwise anointed individuals attempting to smear dissenters. Attempts to claim a monopoly on truth are regressive. We are all worse off for it.<p>Science is not a system of belief. It is a system of rational inquiry. Those who seek to shut down discussion by labeling dissenters as "science deniers" deserve to be scrutinized.<p><a href="https://maps.org/news/media/2986-war-crimes-suppressing-scientific-study-of-cannabis-is-a-shocking-admi" rel="nofollow">https://maps.org/news/media/2986-war-crimes-suppressing-scie...</a><p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470431/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470431/</a><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix</a><p><a href="https://norml.org/blog/2008/06/24/still-more-on-cannabis-cancer-and-the-ongoing-federal-suppression-of-research/" rel="nofollow">https://norml.org/blog/2008/06/24/still-more-on-cannabis-can...</a><p><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-doctor-vs-dea-inside-battle-study-marijuana-america-n1195436" rel="nofollow">https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-doctor-vs-dea-insid...</a>
Smoking wasn't particularly dangerous before scientists invented cigarettes, and science is also what makes Facebook similarly addictive. Maybe the danger comes from not enough science denial.