Science and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticism

Stephan Lewandowsky, Michael E. Mann, Nicholas J.L. Brown, Harris Friedman

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

When the scientific method yields discoveries that imperil people’s lifestyle or worldviews or impinge on corporate vested interests, the public and political response can be anything but favorable. Sometimes the response slides into overt denial of scientific facts, although this denial is often claimed to involve “skepticism”. We outline the distinction between true skepticism and denial with several case studies. We propose some guidelines to enable researchers to differentiate legitimate critical engagement from bad-faith harassment, and to enable members of the public to pursue their skeptical engagement and critique without such engagement being mistaken for harassment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)537-553
Number of pages17
JournalJournal of Social and Political Psychology
Volume4
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

worldview
faith
science
Life Style
Research Personnel
Guidelines
Denial (Psychology)

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Psychology
  • Applied Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Lewandowsky, Stephan ; Mann, Michael E. ; Brown, Nicholas J.L. ; Friedman, Harris. / Science and the public : Debate, denial, and skepticism. In: Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 2016 ; Vol. 4, No. 2. pp. 537-553.
@article{494c1babd7534aafb75c66d0bcfe7f3c,
title = "Science and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticism",
abstract = "When the scientific method yields discoveries that imperil people’s lifestyle or worldviews or impinge on corporate vested interests, the public and political response can be anything but favorable. Sometimes the response slides into overt denial of scientific facts, although this denial is often claimed to involve “skepticism”. We outline the distinction between true skepticism and denial with several case studies. We propose some guidelines to enable researchers to differentiate legitimate critical engagement from bad-faith harassment, and to enable members of the public to pursue their skeptical engagement and critique without such engagement being mistaken for harassment.",
author = "Stephan Lewandowsky and Mann, {Michael E.} and Brown, {Nicholas J.L.} and Harris Friedman",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5964/jspp.v4i2.604",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "537--553",
journal = "Journal of Social and Political Psychology",
issn = "2195-3325",
publisher = "PsychOpen",
number = "2",

}

Science and the public : Debate, denial, and skepticism. / Lewandowsky, Stephan; Mann, Michael E.; Brown, Nicholas J.L.; Friedman, Harris.

In: Journal of Social and Political Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 2, 01.01.2016, p. 537-553.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - Science and the public

T2 - Debate, denial, and skepticism

AU - Lewandowsky, Stephan

AU - Mann, Michael E.

AU - Brown, Nicholas J.L.

AU - Friedman, Harris

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - When the scientific method yields discoveries that imperil people’s lifestyle or worldviews or impinge on corporate vested interests, the public and political response can be anything but favorable. Sometimes the response slides into overt denial of scientific facts, although this denial is often claimed to involve “skepticism”. We outline the distinction between true skepticism and denial with several case studies. We propose some guidelines to enable researchers to differentiate legitimate critical engagement from bad-faith harassment, and to enable members of the public to pursue their skeptical engagement and critique without such engagement being mistaken for harassment.

AB - When the scientific method yields discoveries that imperil people’s lifestyle or worldviews or impinge on corporate vested interests, the public and political response can be anything but favorable. Sometimes the response slides into overt denial of scientific facts, although this denial is often claimed to involve “skepticism”. We outline the distinction between true skepticism and denial with several case studies. We propose some guidelines to enable researchers to differentiate legitimate critical engagement from bad-faith harassment, and to enable members of the public to pursue their skeptical engagement and critique without such engagement being mistaken for harassment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018436894&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018436894&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5964/jspp.v4i2.604

DO - 10.5964/jspp.v4i2.604

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85018436894

VL - 4

SP - 537

EP - 553

JO - Journal of Social and Political Psychology

JF - Journal of Social and Political Psychology

SN - 2195-3325

IS - 2

ER -