With a title like Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, how could I resist? I dove right in, expecting an interesting discussion on the subject and hoping it’d be more substantive and useful than Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future.
I’ll be brief. Don’t bother. While Unscientific America was vapid and shallow, it at least provided an effective overview of the subject. Denialism, on the other hand, is nothing but case studies of health-related antiscience scares (from Vioxx to GMOs). Even the section on antivaccination is strangely lacking - I’ve seen blog posts and magazine articles that do a better job on the subject (irony alert: That second link is authored by Chris Mooney, who also wrote Unscientific America). Oh, and they do it without citing Gavin Menzies as an authority on Chinese history. (If you’ve never heard of the fellow, he’s as much a Chinese historian as Immanuel Velikovsky is an astrophysicist.)
There’s precious little discussion on denialism in Denialism, except by example - and all of the examples have a narrow focus (mistrust of medical and agricultural science). There’s nothing on your traditional denial movements (a parting shot on AIDS deniers and one mention of moon-landing hoaxers, but nothing on creationism) and, surprisingly, a dearth of information on the most well-known contemporary denial-orchestration movement of our time (the tobacco fiasco), nor the most dangerous (climate denial). There’s nothing prescriptive in it except an even more vapid cry for better scientific communication - in other words, Unscientific America, only even less clear (at least Mooney and Kirshenbaum had the courtesy to discuss the role of journalism here). The only positive thing I can say about it is that it spends ample time reminding us that antiscience denialism is not isolated to one side of the political spectrum - while the majority of the non-antivax denial movements nowadays are predominantly right-wing, anti-health denialism has always had its claws stuck in the left, which is quoted from extensively.
Save your time and money. If this material interests you, Doubt Is Their Product is a far, far better book on the subject, even without trying to be - it actually discusses not only the tactics involved, but the path of information and the methods used by professionals to reshape debate. (It even has a strong medical denialism bias, and it *still* outperforms Denialism as an overview!) I suppose Denialism might have a place on a health policy wonk’s bookshelf, but as for a student of denialism, give it a pass.
See also: Tom Philpot: ‘Denialism’ Misses Its Targets.
The author, Michael Specter, was Moscow bureau co-chief for the New York Times with his (former) wife Alessandra Stanley.
There’s something in the water, in those foreign bureau assignments…
:-}
Comment by Anna Haynes — November 12, 2009 @ 11:06 am
On the other hand - though there’s only one post (New Yorker article) on his blog tagged “climate change” - it is (IMO) a good one, Big Foot - In measuring carbon emissions, it’s easy to confuse morality and science.
I wonder why it’s not part of the book.
Comment by Anna Haynes — November 12, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Oof - from the Slate exchange between Mooney and Specter -
“Chris,
…It’s nice of you to notice approvingly that I skipped over the climate and evolution “debates” in Denialism. A few people have seen that as a failing — but my intention here was to address issues where there is some common ground and see whether I could shift it a bit. … If people want to believe…that the protracted, increasing, and devastating warming of the Earth is just nature doing its thing—I guess I feel I have more useful battles to fight.”
Comment by Anna Haynes — November 12, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Anna:
Thanks for the update. I guess he seems to think that getting greenies off of organic food is more important than, I don’t know, preserving a functioning biosphere for the next millennium or so. Glad to see he’s worked that out.
(Personal aside: My own perspective on the locavore movement mirrors Michael Tobis.)
Comment by Brian D — November 12, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
> “My own perspective on the locavore movement…”
Yeah, mine too. Makes it a bit tough in my community, where (it often seems) you’re either a locavore or a redneck - and both groups are extremely averse to criticism.
Re Michael Specter, I did have another thought - what if he’s right? Right, in an outcome-oriented sense - namely that the long-term shortest distance between two points (climate change sanity and the so-called-conservative mindset) might involve joining with them in scoffing at those irrational hippies, while gently slipping in some teachings on critical thinking; then (hopefully) the new critical thinking skills produce cognitive dissonance re old climate views, which lowers the barrier to their moving beyond the latter.
Which is kind of a cool strategy, *if* cognitive dissonance is effective in shifting people of that mindset. Have to revisit Bob Altemeyer’s book, to check on that one.
Comment by Anna Haynes — November 14, 2009 @ 2:47 pm