denialism

Anthropologist Didier Fassin distinguishes between denial, defined as "the empirical observation that reality and truth are being denied", and denialism, which he defines as "an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth".{{cite book|first=Didier|last=Fassin|title=When Bodies Remember: Experiences and Politics of AIDS in South Africa|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jn9yoyuEV1YC&pg=PA115|date=2007|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=978-0520940451|page=115}} Persons and social groups who reject propositions on which there exists a mainstream and scientific consensus engage in denialism when they use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument and legitimate debate, when there is none.{{sfn|Kalichman|2009}} It is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy:{{cite news|url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2009/mar/10/climate-change-denier|title= Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them|newspaper= The Guardian|author= Mark Hoofnagle|date= March 11, 2009}}

1. Conspiracy theories – Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in "a conspiracy to suppress the truth".
2. Cherry picking – Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers to make their opponents look as though they base their ideas on weak research. Diethelm and McKee (2009) note, "Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as an indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness."
3. False experts – Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility. This goes hand-in-hand with the marginalization of real experts and researchers.
4. Moving the goalposts – Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence (aka Shifting baseline)
5. Other logical fallacies – Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.

Common tactics to different types of denialism include misrepresenting evidence, false equivalence, half-truths, and outright fabrication.{{cite book |last1=MacDonald |first1=David B.|author-link=David B. MacDonald |title=Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide: The Holocaust and Historical Representation |date=2008 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1134085729 |language=en|page=133}}; {{cite book |last1=Bloxham |first1=Donald|author-link=Donald Bloxham |title=The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians|title-link=The Great Game of Genocide |date=2005 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0199226887 |language=en|page=208}}{{cite book |author=Richard J. Evans |title=David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition |chapter-url=http://www.hdot.org/trial/defense/evans/6 |chapter=6. General Conclusion |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012140414/http://www.hdot.org/trial/defense/evans/6 |archive-date=October 12, 2007 |at=Paragraphs 6.20, 6.21 |via=Holocaust Denial on Trial|author-link=Richard J. Evans |quote=Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly. They do not present, as genuine, documents which they know to be forged just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious, but implausible, and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents, because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments, if this is the case, or, indeed, abandon them altogether. They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources, which, in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability, or otherwise, simply because they want, for whatever reason, to maximize the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures, as impartially as possible, in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others. They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages in order to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not willfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events, for which there is no historical evidence, in order to make their arguments more plausible.}}[http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Urgent_Action/apic-90503.html The dead hand of denialism] Edwin Cameron. Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg), April 17, 2003. South African judge Edwin Cameron notes that a common tactic used by denialists is to "make great play of the inescapable indeterminacy of figures and statistics". Historian Taner Akçam states that denialism is commonly believed to be negation of facts, but in fact "it is in that nebulous territory between facts and truth where such denialism germinates. Denialism marshals its own facts and it has its own truth."{{cite book |last1=Akçam |first1=Taner |title=Killing Orders: Talat Pasha's Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide|title-link=Killing Orders |date=2018 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |isbn=978-3319697871 |language=en|page=2}}

Focusing on the rhetorical tactics through which denialism is achieved in language, in Alex Gillespie (2020){{cite journal|last=Gillespie|first=Alex|title=Disruption, Self-Presentation, and Defensive Tactics at the Threshold of Learning|journal=Review of General Psychology|year=2020|volume=24|issue=4|pages=382–396|doi=10.1177/1089268020914258|doi-access=free}} of the London School of Economics has reviewed the linguistic and practical defensive tactics for denying disruptive information. These tactics are conceptualized in terms of three layers of defence:

1. Avoiding – The first line of defence against disruptive information is to avoid it.
2. Delegitimizing – The second line of defence is to attack the messenger, by undermining the credibility of the source.
3. Limiting – The final line of defence, if disruptive information cannot be avoided or delegitimized, is to rationalize and limit the impact of the disruptive ideas.

In 2009, author Michael Specter defined group denialism as "when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie".

{{cite book

|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=J-VMNrt3JyIC&q=%E2%80%9Cwhen+an+entire+segment+of+society,+often+struggling+with+the+trauma+of+change,+turns+away+from+reality+in+favor+of+a+more+comfortable+lie.%E2%80%9D&pg=PT7

|title= Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives

|publisher= Penguin|author= Specter, Michael|author-link= Michael Specter

|year= 2009|isbn= 978-1594202308|access-date= March 19, 2016

}}

If one party to a debate accuses the other of denialism they are framing the debate. This is because an accusation of denialism is both prescriptive and polemic: prescriptive because it carries implications that there is truth to the denied claim; polemic since the accuser implies that continued denial in the light of presented evidence raises questions about the other's motives. Edward Skidelsky, a lecturer in philosophy at Exeter University writes that "An accusation of 'denial' is serious, suggesting either deliberate dishonesty or self-deception. The thing being denied is, by implication, so obviously true that the denier must be driven by perversity, malice or wilful blindness." He suggests that, by the introduction of the word denier into further areas of historical and scientific debate, "One of the great achievements of The Enlightenment{{snd}}the liberation of historical and scientific enquiry from dogma{{snd}}is quietly being reversed".{{cite web|first=Edward|last=Skidelsky|date=January 27, 2010|url=https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/words-that-think-for-us-3|title=Words that think for us: The tyranny of denial|work=Prospect|access-date=August 10, 2012}}

Some people have suggested that because denial of the Holocaust is well known, advocates who use the term denialist in other areas of debate may intentionally or unintentionally imply that their opponents are little better than Holocaust deniers.{{sfn|James|2009}}{{sfn|Farber|2006}} However, Robert Gallo et al. defended this latter comparison, stating that AIDS denialism is similar to Holocaust denial since it is a form of pseudoscience that "contradicts an immense body of research".{{sfn|Gallo|Geffen|Gonsalves|Jefferys|2006}}

{{further|Antiscience|Pseudoscience|politicization of science}}

File:2007- Climate change misinformation on Twitter or X.svg

{{excerpt|Climate change denial|paragraphs=1-2|file=no}}

{{Main|HIV/AIDS denialism}}

AIDS denialism is the denial that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).{{cite journal |vauthors=Chigwedere P, Essex M |date=April 2010 |title=AIDS denialism and public health practice |journal=AIDS Behav |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=237–47 |doi=10.1007/s10461-009-9654-7 |pmid=20058063 |s2cid=22822335}} AIDS denialism has been described as being "among the most vocal anti-science denial movements".{{cite journal |vauthors=Kalichman SC, Eaton L, Cherry C |date=June 2010 |title="There is no Proof that HIV Causes AIDS": AIDS Denialism Beliefs among People Living with HIV/AIDS |journal=J Behav Med |volume=33 |issue=6 |pages=432–440 |doi=10.1007/s10865-010-9275-7 |pmc=3015095 |pmid=20571892}} Some denialists reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that the virus exists but say that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS. Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to some combination of recreational drug use, malnutrition, poor sanitation, and side effects of antiretroviral medication, rather than infection with HIV. However, the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive{{cite book |author1=Institute of Medicine (US) Committee for the Oversight of AIDS Activities |url=https://www.nap.edu/read/771/chapter/2#2 |title=Confronting AIDS: Update 1988 |publisher=Institute of Medicine of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences |year=1988 |isbn=978-0309038799 |doi=10.17226/771 |pmid=25032454 |quote=…the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive.}}{{cite web |date=January 14, 2010 |title=The Evidence that HIV Causes AIDS |url=http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/howhivcausesaids/pages/hivcausesaids.aspx |access-date=October 8, 2010 |publisher=National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease}} and the scientific community rejects and ignores AIDS-denialist claims as based on faulty reasoning, cherry picking, and misrepresentation of mainly outdated scientific data.{{efn|To support their ideas, some AIDS denialists have also misappropriated a scientific review in Nature Medicine which opens with this reasonable statement: "Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still debated" {{harv|Borowski|2006|p=369}}.}} With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is now spread mainly through the Internet.{{cite journal |last=Steinberg |first=J |date=June 17, 2009 |title=AIDS denial: A lethal delusion |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227131.500-aids-denial-a-lethal-delusion.html |journal=New Scientist |volume=2713 |access-date=October 14, 2009}}

Thabo Mbeki, former president of South Africa, embraced AIDS denialism, proclaiming that AIDS was primarily caused by poverty. About 365,000 people died from AIDS during his presidency; it is estimated that around 343,000 premature deaths could have been prevented if proper treatment had been available.{{cite journal |vauthors=Chigwedere P, Seage GR, Gruskin S, Lee TH, Essex M |date=October 2008 |title=Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa |url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/researchers-estimate-lives-lost-delay-arv-drug-use-hivaids-south-africa.html |journal=Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes |volume=49 |issue=4 |pages=410–415 |doi=10.1097/QAI.0b013e31818a6cd5 |pmid=19186354 |s2cid=11458278 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100205184817/http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/researchers-estimate-lives-lost-delay-arv-drug-use-hivaids-south-africa.html |archive-date=February 5, 2010 |doi-access=free}}{{cite journal |author=Nattrass N |date=February 2008 |title=Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa |journal=African Affairs |volume=107 |issue=427 |pages=157–176 |doi=10.1093/afraf/adm087 |doi-access=free}}

{{Main|COVID-19 misinformation}}

{{multiple image |total_width=450

| image1 = 202003- Cumulative county COVID-19 death rates - by share of votes for Donald Trump.svg |caption1= After the December 2020 introduction of COVID vaccines, a partisan gap in death rates developed, indicating the effects of vaccine skepticism.{{cite news |date=March 11, 2024 |title=The Fourth Anniversary of the Covid Pandemic |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/briefing/covid-pandemic-anniversary.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240311124758/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/briefing/covid-pandemic-anniversary.html |archive-date=March 11, 2024 |newspaper=The New York Times |vauthors=Leonhardt D}} "Data excludes Alaska. Sources: C.D.C. Wonder; Edison Research. (Chart) By The New York Times. Source credits chart to Ashley Wu. As of March 2024, more than 30 percent of Republicans had not received a Covid vaccine, compared with less than 10 percent of Democrats.

| image2 = 'COVID is a lie', Sports pavilion, playing field, Wakefield Road, Pontefract (4th September 2020).jpg |caption2= "COVID is a lie" graffiti in Pontefract, West Yorkshire, England

}}

The term "COVID-19 denialism" or merely "COVID denialism" refers to the thinking of those who deny the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic,{{cite web|title=The Coronavirus-Denial Movement Now Has a Leader|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/bolsonaro-coronavirus-denial-brazil-trump/608926/|date=2020|language=en-US|first=Uri|last=Friedman|access-date=April 25, 2020|publisher=The Atlantic}}{{cite journal|last=Phillips|first=Tom|date=2020|title=Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro says coronavirus crisis is a media trick|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/brazils-jair-bolsonaro-says-coronavirus-crisis-is-a-media-trick|journal=The Guardian|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}} at least to the extent of denying the scientifically recognized COVID mortality data of the World Health Organization. The claims that the COVID-19 pandemic has been faked, exaggerated, or mischaracterized are pseudoscience.{{cite journal|last1=Phillips|first1=Tom|last2=Briso|first2=Caio Barretto|date=2020|title=Bolsonaro's anti-science response to coronavirus appals Brazil's governors|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/jair-bolsonaro-coronavirus-brazil-governors-appalled|journal=The Guardian|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}} Some famous people who have engaged in COVID-19 denialism include Elon Musk,{{Cite web|last=Walsh|first=Joe|title=Elon Musk's False Covid Predictions: A Timeline|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/03/13/elon-musks-false-covid-predictions-a-timeline/|access-date=February 17, 2022|website=Forbes|language=en}} U.S. President Donald Trump,{{Cite web|title=Don't Be Shocked Trump Lied About COVID On Tape. Be Horrified That It Won't Matter|url=https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2020/09/09/woodward-book-play-it-down-coronavirus-steve-almond|access-date=February 17, 2022|website=WBUR |date=September 9, 2020 |language=en}}{{Cite web|date=July 29, 2020|title=Six months of Trump's Covid denials: 'It'll go away … It's fading'|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/29/trump-coronavirus-science-denial-timeline-what-has-he-said|access-date=February 17, 2022|website=The Guardian|language=en}} and former Brazilian President Bolsonaro.{{Cite web|date=June 19, 2021|title=Bolsonaro's most controversial coronavirus quotes|url=https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210619-bolsonaro-s-most-controversial-coronavirus-quotes|access-date=February 17, 2022|website=France 24|language=en}}

{{Main|Rejection of evolution by religious groups}}

Religious beliefs may prompt an individual to deny the validity of the scientific theory of evolution. Evolution is considered an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal, yet this view is often met with opposition by biblical literalists.{{sfn|Myers|2006}}{{sfn|NSTA|2007}}{{sfn|IAP|2006}}{{sfn|AAAS|2006}}{{sfn|Pinholster|2006}} The alternative view is often presented as a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis's creation myth. Many fundamentalist Christians teach creationism as if it were fact under the banners of creation science and intelligent design. Beliefs that typically coincide with creationism include the belief in the global flood myth, geocentrism, and the belief that the Earth is only 6,000–10,000 years old.{{cite court|litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard|vol= 482|reporter= U.S.|opinion= 578|court= Supreme Court of the United States|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578}}, cited by {{Harvnb|Numbers|2006|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA272 272]}} as "[on]ne of the most precise explications of creation science" These beliefs are viewed as pseudoscience in the scientific community and are widely regarded as erroneous.{{cite web|url=https://ncse.com/media/voices/science|title=Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations|publisher=National Center for Science Education|access-date=August 28, 2008}}

{{Main|Flat Earth|Modern flat Earth beliefs}}

The superseded belief that the Earth is flat, and denial of all of the overwhelming evidence that supports an approximately spherical Earth that rotates around its axis and orbits the Sun, persists into the 21st century. Modern proponents of flat-Earth cosmology (or flat-Earthers) refuse to accept any kind of contrary evidence, dismissing all spaceflights and images from space as hoaxes and accusing all organizations and even private citizens of conspiring to "hide the truth". They also claim that no actual satellites are orbiting the Earth, that the International Space Station is fake, and that these are lies from all governments involved in this grand cover-up. Some even believe other planets and stars are hoaxes.

Adherents of the modern flat-earth model propose that a dome-shaped firmament encloses a disk-shaped Earth. They may also claim, after Samuel Rowbotham, that the Sun is only {{convert|3000|miles}} above the Earth and that the Moon and the Sun orbit above the Earth rather than around it. Modern flat-earthers believe that Antarctica is not a continent but a massive ice floe, with a wall {{convert|150|feet}} or higher, which circles the perimeter of the Earth and keeps everything (including all the oceans' water) from falling off the edge.

Flat-Earthers also assert that no one is allowed to fly over or explore Antarctica, despite contrary evidence. According to them, all photos and videos of ships sinking under the horizon and of the bottoms of city skylines and clouds below the horizon, revealing the curvature of the Earth, have been manipulated, computer-generated, or somehow faked. Therefore, regardless of any scientific or empirical evidence provided, flat-Earthers conclude that it is fabricated or altered in some way.

When linked to other observed phenomena such as gravity, sunsets, tides, eclipses, distances and other measurements that challenge the flat earth model, claimants replace commonly-accepted explanations with piecemeal models that distort or over-simplify how perspective, mass, buoyancy, light or other physical systems work.{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/01/flat-earth-bob-outside-physicist/431583/|title=In Defense of Flat Earthers|last=Wade|first=Lizzy|website=The Atlantic|date=January 27, 2016}} These piecemeal replacements rarely conform with each other, finally leaving many flat-Earth claimants to agree that such phenomena remain "mysteries" and more investigation is to be done. In this conclusion, adherents remain open to all explanations except the commonly accepted globular Earth model, shifting the debate from ignorance to denialism.{{cite web|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201702/flat-earthers-belief-skepticism-and-denialism|title=Flat Earthers: Belief, Skepticism, and Denialism|last=Pierre|first=Joe|date=February 19, 2017}}

{{Main|Genetically modified food controversies}}

{{also|GMO conspiracy theories}}

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from genetically modified crops (GM) poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.

Psychological analyses indicate that over 70% of GM food opponents in the US are "absolute" in their opposition, experience disgust at the thought of eating GM foods, and are "evidence insensitive".{{cite journal|url=http://yoelinbar.net/papers/gmo_absolute.pdf|title=Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States|first1=Sydney E.|last1=Scott|first2=Yoel|last2=Inbar|first3=Paul|last3=Rozin|journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science|date=2016|volume=11|issue=3|pages=315–324|doi=10.1177/1745691615621275|pmid=27217243|s2cid=261060}}

Statin denialism is a rejection of the medical worth of statins, a class of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Cardiologist Steven Nissen at Cleveland Clinic has commented "We are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of our patients to Web sites..."{{cite web|url=http://www.cardiobrief.org/2017/07/24/nissen-calls-statin-denialism-a-deadly-internet-driven-cult/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171219010101/http://www.cardiobrief.org/2017/07/24/nissen%2Dcalls%2Dstatin%2Ddenialism%2Da%2Ddeadly%2Dinternet%2Ddriven%2Dcult/|title=Nissen Calls Statin Denialism A Deadly Internet-Driven Cult|last=Husten|first=Larry | name-list-style = vanc |date=July 24, 2017|publisher=CardioBrief|access-date=December 19, 2017|url-status=live|archive-date=December 19, 2017 }} promoting unproven medical therapies. Harriet Hall sees a spectrum of statin denialism ranging from pseudoscientific claims to the understatement of benefits and overstatement of side effects, all of which is contrary to the scientific evidence.{{cite magazine |last1=Hall |first1=Harriet |author-link1=Harriet Hall |title=Statin Denialism |magazine=Skeptical Inquirer |year=2017 |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=40–43 |url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/2017/05/statin_denialism/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181006201202/https://www.csicop.org/si/show/statin_denialism |archive-date=October 6, 2018 |access-date=October 6, 2018 |url-status=live |name-list-style = vanc}}

{{main|Mental illness denial}}

Mental illness denial or mental disorder denial is where a person denies the existence of mental disorders. Serious analysts,{{Cite web|title='Depression' Is a Symptom, Not a Disorder|url=https://opmed.doximity.com/articles/depression-is-a-symptom-not-a-disorder|access-date=December 13, 2021|website=opmed.doximity.com|language=en}}{{Cite web|last=Escalante|first=Alison|title=Researchers Doubt That Certain Mental Disorders Are Disorders At All|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisonescalante/2020/08/11/researchers-doubt-that-certain-mental-disorders-are-disorders-at-all/|access-date=December 13, 2021|website=Forbes|language=en}} as well as pseudoscientific movements, question the existence of certain disorders. A minority of professional researchers see disorders such as depression from a sociocultural perspective and argue that the solution to it is fixing a dysfunction in society, not in the person's brain. Some people may also deny that they have a mental illness after being diagnosed, and certain analysts argue this denialism is usually fueled by narcissistic injury.Saks, Elyn R. "Some thoughts on denial of mental illness." American Journal of Psychiatry 166.9 (2009): 972–973. Web. December 11, 2021 Anti-psychiatry movements such as Scientology promote mental illness denial by having alternative practices to psychiatry.{{cite web|last=Novella|first=Steven|title=Mental Illness Denial|website=ScienceBasedMedicine.org|publisher=|date=January 24, 2018|url=https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/mental-illness-denial/|access-date=November 4, 2021}}

{{Globalize|date=June 2023|section}}

{{See also|Election denial movement in the United States}}

Election denial is false dismissal of the outcome of a fair election. Stacey Abrams denied the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election was "a free and fair election" and spent $22 million in "largely unsuccessful" litigation.{{cite news |date=November 3, 2022 |title=An ethics watchdog criticized Stacey Abrams. His boss retracted it. |language=en |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/us/stacey-abrams-ethics-voting-rights.html |access-date=November 3, 2022 |quote=$22 million on a largely unsuccessful voting rights lawsuit ... In 2018, Ms. Abrams lost a close campaign for governor to Brian Kemp and refused to concede}} Since the 2020 United States presidential election, there has been an ongoing stolen election conspiracy theory about the 2020 presidential election.

{{expand section|date=May 2020}}

{{Main|Historical negationism}}

Historical negationism, the denialism of widely accepted historical facts, is a major source of concern among historians and it is frequently used to falsify{{cite book |last1=Watts |first1=Philip |title=Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-five |publisher=Infobase Publishing |isbn=978-1-4381-2874-0 |language=en |chapter=Rewriting history: Céline and Kurt Vonnegut|year=2009 }}{{cite journal |last1=Pohl |first1=Dieter |author-link1 = Dieter Pohl| title=Holocaust Studies in Our Societies |journal=S:I.M.O.N. Shoah: Intervention. Methods. Documentation. |date=2020 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=133–141 |url=https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=858280 |issn=2408-9192 |quote=In addition, Holocaust research can support the fight against the falsification of history, not only Nazi negationism, but also lighter forms of historical propaganda.}} or distort accepted historical events. In attempting to revise the past, negationists are distinguished by the use of techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents, attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite, manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view, and deliberately mistranslating texts.Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, by Richard J. Evans, 2001, {{ISBN|0-465-02153-0}}. p. 145. The author is a professor of Modern History, at the University of Cambridge, and was a major expert-witness in the Irving v. Lipstadt trial; the book presents his perspective of the trial, and the expert-witness report, including his research about the Dresden death count.

Some countries, such as Germany, have criminalized the negationist revision of certain historical events, while other countries take a more cautious position for various reasons, such as the protection of free speech. Others mandate negationist views, such as California, where schoolchildren have been explicitly prevented from learning about the California genocide.{{Cite journal|last1=Trafzer |first1=Clifford E. |last2=Lorimer |first2=Michelle |title=Silencing California Indian Genocide in Social Studies Texts |date=August 5, 2013 |journal=American Behavioral Scientist |pages=64–82 |volume=58 |issue=1 |doi=10.1177/0002764213495032|s2cid=144356070 }}{{Cite journal|last1=Fenelon |first1=James V. |last2=Trafzer |first2=Clifford E. |title=From Colonialism to Denial of California Genocide to Misrepresentations: Special Issue on Indigenous Struggles in the Americas |date=December 4, 2013 |journal=American Behavioral Scientist |pages=3–29 |volume=58 |issue=1 |doi=10.1177/0002764213495045|s2cid=145377834 }}

{{excerpt|Armenian genocide denial}}

{{Main|Holocaust denial}}

Holocaust denial refers to the denial of the murder of 5 to 6 million Jews by the Nazis in Europe during World War 2. In this context, the term is a subset of genocide denial, which is a form of politically motivated denialism.See, e.g., {{cite journal|year=2005|title=The Political Methodology of Genocide Denial|url=http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au/dialogue/vol3-3-1.pdf|journal=Dialogue|volume=3|issue=3|pages=1–23|author=Strakosch, Elizabeth|access-date=August 17, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070829055555/http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au//dialogue/vol3-3-1.pdf|archive-date=August 29, 2007}}Paul O'Shea, A Cross Too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917–1943, Rosenberg Publishing, 2008. {{ISBN|1877058718}}. [https://books.google.com/books?id=_ZMaFfg0u-EC&pg=PA20&dq=denialism&lr= p. 20].

{{Main|Nakba denial}}

Nakba denial refers to attempts to downgrade, deny and misdescribe the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during the Nakba,{{cite journal |last1=Shupak |first1=Greg |title=Erasing The Nakba, Upholding Apartheid |journal=Current Issues in Depth |date=2022 |issue=8 |url=https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/1653004}} in which four-fifths of all Palestinians were driven off their lands and into exile.{{cite book |last1=Pappe |first1=Ilan |title=The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine |date=September 1, 2007}}

{{further|Srebrenica massacre#Denial}}

Sonja Biserko, president of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, and Edina Bečirević, the Faculty of Criminalistics, Criminology and Security Studies of the University of Sarajevo have pointed to a culture of denial of the Srebrenica massacre in Serbian society, taking many forms and present in particular in political discourse, the media, the law and the educational system.[http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2638 Denial of genocide – on the possibility of normalising relations in the region] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231517/http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2638 |date=March 3, 2016 }} by Sonja Biserko (the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia) and Edina Bečirević (Faculty of Criminalistics, Criminology and Security Studies of the University of Sarajevo).

{{Portal|Philosophy|Psychology}}{{Div col|colwidth=20em|content=* Agnotology

• Anti-environmentalism
• Barriers to pro-environmental behaviour
• Confirmation bias
• Cult
• Delusion
• Environmental skepticism
• Euphemism
• Gibson's law
• Inoculation theory
• List of cognitive biases
• Obscurantism
• Pseudoskepticism
• Philosophy of science
• Psychology of climate change denial
• Red pill and blue pill
• Reputation management
• Voldemort effect}}

{{Notelist}}

{{Reflist|30em|refs={{Cite journal|url=https://www.pps.net/cms/lib/OR01913224/Centricity/Domain/3337/peer%20reviewed%20meta%20study%20on%20GMOs%20copy.pdf|title=An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research|first1=Alessandro|last1=Nicolia|first2=Alberto|last2=Manzo|first3=Fabio|last3=Veronesi|first4=Daniele|last4=Rosellini|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|volume=34|issue=1|date=2013|pages=77–88|doi=10.3109/07388551.2013.823595|pmid=24041244|s2cid=9836802|quote=We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.}}

{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651The|title=State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops|publisher=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote=Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants – mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape – without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).}}

{{Cite journal|title=Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security|first=Pamela|last=Ronald|journal=Genetics|date=May 1, 2011|volume=188|issue=1|pages=11–20|doi=10.1534/genetics.111.128553|pmid=21546547|pmc=3120150|quote="There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010)."}}

But see also:

{{Cite journal|url=http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf|title=A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants|first1=José L.|last1=Domingo|first2=Jordi Giné|last2=Bordonaba|journal=Environment International|date=2011|volume=37|issue=4|pages=734–742|doi=10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003|pmid=21296423|bibcode=2011EnInt..37..734D |quote=In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.}}

{{Cite journal|title=An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment|first=Sheldon|last=Krimsky|s2cid=40855100|journal=Science, Technology, & Human Values|volume=40|issue=6|pages=883–914|doi=10.1177/0162243915598381|date=2015|quote=I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.}}

And contrast:

{{Cite journal|title=Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons|first1=Alexander Y.|last1=Panchin|first2=Alexander I.|last2=Tuzhikov|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|volume = 37|issue = 2|pages = 213–217|date=January 14, 2016|issn=0738-8551|doi=10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684|pmid = 26767435|s2cid=11786594|quote=Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.}}

and

{{Cite web|url=http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf|title=Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|date=October 20, 2012|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote="The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."}}

{{Cite web|url=https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf|title=AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"|first=Ginger|last=Pinholster|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|date=October 25, 2012|access-date=August 30, 2019}}

{{Cite book|url=http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf|title=A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010)|publisher=Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union.|doi=10.2777/97784|isbn=978-9279163449|access-date=August 30, 2019|date=2010|author1=European Commission. Directorate-General for Research}}

{{Cite web |url=https://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/Position/ama.htm |title=AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods |date=January 2001 |publisher=American Medical Association |access-date=August 30, 2019 |via=International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications}}{{Cite web|url=http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf|title=REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods|publisher=American Medical Association|date=2012|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote=Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.|archive-date=September 7, 2012}}

{{Cite web|url=http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php#Opinion|title=Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion|publisher=Library of Congress|date=June 30, 2015|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote="Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs."}}

{{Cite book|url=http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/7#149|title=Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects|publisher=The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US)|page=149|date=2016|access-date=August 30, 2019|doi=10.17226/23395|pmid=28230933|quote="Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts."|isbn=978-0309437387|last1=National Academies Of Sciences|first1=Engineering|author2=Division on Earth Life Studies|author3=Board on Agriculture Natural Resources|author4=Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience Future Prospects}}

{{Cite web|url=https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/|title=Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods|publisher=World Health Organization|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote=Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.}}

{{Cite journal|title=Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects|first=Alexander G.|last=Haslberger|journal=Nature Biotechnology|volume=21|issue=7|pages=739–741|date=2003|doi=10.1038/nbt0703-739|pmid=12833088|s2cid=2533628|quote=These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.}}

Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle:

{{Cite web|url=http://www.argenbio.org/adc/uploads/pdf/bma.pdf|title=Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement|publisher=British Medical Association|date=March 2004|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote=In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.}}

{{Cite web|url=http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/|title=Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society|first1=Cary|last1=Funk|first2=Lee|last2=Rainie|publisher=Pew Research Center|date=January 29, 2015|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote=The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.}}

{{Cite journal|title=Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths|first=Claire|last=Marris|journal=EMBO Reports|volume=2|issue=7|pages=545–548|date=2001|doi=10.1093/embo-reports/kve142|pmid=11463731|pmc=1083956}}

{{Cite web|url=http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.doc|title=Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe|date=December 2001|author=Final Report of the PABE research project|publisher=Commission of European Communities|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525042822/http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.doc |archive-date=May 25, 2017|access-date=August 30, 2019}}

{{Cite journal|url=http://yoelinbar.net/papers/gmo_absolute.pdf|title=Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States|first1=Sydney E.|last1=Scott|first2=Yoel|last2=Inbar|first3=Paul|last3=Rozin|journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science|date=2016|volume=11|issue=3|pages=315–324|doi=10.1177/1745691615621275|pmid=27217243|s2cid=261060}}

{{Cite web|url=http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/|title=Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms|publisher=Library of Congress|date=June 9, 2015|access-date=August 30, 2019}}

{{Cite web|url=http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html|title=FDA and Regulation of GMOs|first=Ramona|last=Bashshur|publisher=American Bar Association|date=February 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180621044554/https://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html|archive-date=June 21, 2018|access-date=August 30, 2019}}

{{Cite magazine|url=https://time.com/4060476/eu-gmo-crops-european-union-opt-out/|title=Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs|first=Alexandra|last=Sifferlin|magazine=Time|date=October 3, 2015|access-date=August 30, 2019}}

{{Cite web|url=http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688|title=The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics|first1=Diahanna|last1=Lynch|first2=David|last2=Vogel|publisher=Council on Foreign Relations|date=April 5, 2001|access-date=August 30, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160929200540/http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688|archive-date=September 29, 2016}}

}}

{{refbegin|2}}

• {{cite web |last=AAAS |first=American Association for the Advancement of Science |authorlink=American Association for the Advancement of Science |date=February 16, 2006 |title=Statement on the Teaching of Evolution |publisher=aaas.org |url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf |access-date=January 1, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf |archive-date=February 21, 2006 }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Avedian |first1=Vahagn |title=Recognition, Responsibility and Reconciliation: The Trinity of the Armenian Genocide |journal=Europa Ethnica |date=2013 |volume=70 |issue=3/4 |pages=77–86 |doi=10.24989/0014-2492-2013-34-77 |url=https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lup/publication/10c46a96-e971-4a35-8484-d647ed289b1c |issn=0014-2492 }}
• {{cite magazine |last=Begley |first=Sharon |author-link=Sharon Begley |url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482 |title=The Truth About Denial |magazine=Newsweek |date=August 13, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071021024942/http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482 |archive-date=October 21, 2007}} ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070820002929/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/ MSNBC single page version, archived 20 August 2007])
• {{cite journal |editor-last=Borowski |editor-first=Christine |year=2006 |title=Denying science |journal=Nat. Med. |volume=12 |issue=4 |page=369 |pmid=16598265 |doi=10.1038/nm0406-369 |s2cid=11166916 |doi-access=free }}
• {{cite book |last1=Cheterian |first1=Vicken |author-link=Vicken Cheterian |title=Open Wounds: Armenians, Turks and a Century of Genocide |date=2015 |publisher=C. Hurst & Co. |isbn=978-1-84904-458-5 |language=en}}
• {{cite book |last1=Cheterian |first1=Vicken |title=Truth, Silence, and Violence in Emerging States. Histories of the Unspoken |date=2018a |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-351-14112-3 |language=en |chapter=Censorship, Indifference, Oblivion: the Armenian Genocide and Its Denial |pages=188–214}}
• {{cite book |last1=Chorbajian |first1=Levon |author-link1=Levon Chorbajian |title=The Armenian Genocide Legacy |date=2016 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |isbn=978-1-137-56163-3 |pages=167–182 |language=en |chapter='They Brought It on Themselves and It Never Happened': Denial to 1939}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Cohen |first=Jon |date=June 15, 2007 |doi=10.1126/science.316.5831.1554 |volume=316 |issue=5831 |page=1554 |title=HIV/AIDS: AIDSTruth.org Web Site Takes Aim at 'Denialists' |journal=Science |pmid=17569834|s2cid=30223809 |doi-access=free }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Colquhoun |first=David |date=September 9, 2009 |doi=10.1136/bmj.b3658 |volume=339 |page=b3658 |title=Trust me, I'm a scientist |journal=BMJ |s2cid=72546131 |url=http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/339/sep09_1/b3658 |url-access=subscription }}
• {{cite news |last=Connelly |first=Joel |date=July 10, 2007 |url=http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/323181_joel11.html |title=Deniers of global warming harm us |newspaper=Seattle Post-Intelligencer }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Dadrian |first1=Vahakn N. |author1-link=Vahakn Dadrian |title=The Signal Facts Surrounding the Armenian Genocide and the Turkish Denial Syndrome |journal=Journal of Genocide Research |date=2003 |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=269–279 |doi=10.1080/14623520305671 |s2cid=71289389 }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Demirel |first1=Cagla |last2=Eriksson |first2=Johan |title=Competitive Victimhood and Reconciliation: the Case of Turkish–Armenian Relations |journal=Identities |date=2020 |volume=27 |issue=5 |pages=537–556 |doi=10.1080/1070289X.2019.1611073 |s2cid=150456701 }}
• {{cite book |last1=Dixon |first1=Jennifer M. |title=Dark Pasts: Changing the State's Story in Turkey and Japan |date=2018 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-1-5017-3025-2 |page=42 |language=en}}
• {{cite web |last=Farber |first=Celia |date=March 2006 |url=http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/03/0080961 |title=Out of control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science |publisher=Harper's Magazine }}
• {{cite web |last1=Gallo |first1=Robert |authorlink=Robert Gallo |first2=Nathan |last2=Geffen |first3=Gregg |last3=Gonsalves |first4=Richard |last4=Jefferys |first5=Daniel R. |last5=Kuritzkes |first6=Bruce |last6=Mirken |first7=John P. |last7=Moore |first8=Jeffrey T. |last8=Safrit |date=March 25, 2006 |url=http://www.aegis.org/files/tac/2006/errorsinfarberarticle.html |title=Errors in Celia Farber's March 2006 article in Harper's Magazine |publisher=AIDS Education Global Information System |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081202191027/http://www.aegis.org/files/tac/2006/errorsinfarberarticle.html |archive-date=December 2, 2008 }}
• {{cite book |last1=Göçek |first1=Fatma Müge |author1-link=Fatma Müge Göçek |title=Denial of Violence: Ottoman Past, Turkish Present and Collective Violence Against the Armenians, 1789–2009 |date=2015 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-933420-9 |title-link=Denial of Violence}}
• {{cite news |last=Goodman |first=Ellen |author-link=Ellen Goodman |date=February 9, 2007 |url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/ |title=No change in political climate |publisher=The Boston Globe }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Gürpınar |first1=Doğan |title=The Manufacturing of Denial: the Making of the Turkish 'Official Thesis' on the Armenian Genocide Between 1974 and 1990 |journal=Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies |date=2016 |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=217–240 |doi=10.1080/19448953.2016.1176397|s2cid=148518678 }}
• {{cite web |last=Hambling |first=David |date=September 1, 2009 |url=http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/science/2158/abominable_no_men.html |title=Abominable 'No' Men |publisher=Fortean Times |location=UK |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091126155807/http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/science/2158/abominable_no_men.html |archive-date=November 26, 2009 }}
• {{cite book |last1=Hovannisian |first1=Richard G. |author1-link=Richard G. Hovannisian |title=Remembering for the Future: The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide |date=2001 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |isbn=978-1-349-66019-3 |pages=796–812 |language=en |chapter=Denial: The Armenian Genocide as a Prototype}}
• {{cite book |last=IAP |first=Interacademy Panel |date=June 21, 2006 |title=IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution |publisher=interacademies.net |url=http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091106154326/http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf |archive-date=November 6, 2009 |access-date=January 1, 2007 }}
• {{cite book |last=Ihrig |first=Stefan |author-link=Stefan Ihrig |date=2016 |title=Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler |title-link=Justifying Genocide |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-50479-0}}
• {{cite news |last=James |first=Clive |authorlink=Clive James |date=October 23, 2009 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322513.stm |title=In praise of scepticism |publisher=BBC }}
• {{cite web |last=Kalichman |first=Seth |authorlink=Seth Kalichman |date=November 1, 2009 |url=http://newhumanist.org.uk/2165/how-to-spot-an-aids-denialist |title=How to spot an AIDS denialist |work=New Humanist |publisher=The Rationalist Association |location=London }}
• {{Cite journal |last=Kennedy |first=Donald |date=July 27, 2007 |doi=10.1126/science.1147817 |volume=317 |issue=5837 |page=425 |title=Climate: Game Over |journal=Science |pmid=17656688|s2cid=20246619 }}
• {{cite book |last1=Kévorkian |first1=Raymond |author1-link=Raymond Kévorkian |title=The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History |title-link=The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History |date=2011 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-0-85771-930-0 |language=en}}
• {{cite journal |last=Kim |first=Richard |authorlink=The Nation |date=March 2, 2007 |title=Harper's Publishes AIDS Denialist |journal=The Nation |url=http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=65330 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120913014037/http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=65330 |archive-date=September 13, 2012 }}
• {{cite news |last=Maslin |first=Janet |date=November 4, 2009 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/books/05book.html?_r=1 |title=Michael Specter Fires Bullets of Data at Cozy Antiscience in 'Denialism' |work=New York Times }}
• {{cite news |last=Monbiot |first=George |authorlink=George Monbiot |date=September 19, 2006 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 |title=The denial industry |newspaper=Guardian Unlimited }}
• {{cite journal |last=Myers |first=P.Z. |authorlink=PZ Myers |date=June 18, 2006 |title=Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution? |journal=Pharyngula |publisher=ScienceBlogs |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060622031856/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php |archive-date=June 22, 2006 |access-date=September 1, 2007 }}
• {{cite journal |ref={{harvid|Nature Medicine's editor|2006}} |year=2006 |title=Editorial: Denying science |journal=Nature Medicine |volume=12 |issue=4 |page=369 |url=http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v12/n4/pdf/nm0406-369.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928041301/http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v12/n4/pdf/nm0406-369.pdf |archive-date=September 28, 2007 |doi=10.1038/nm0406-369 |pmid=16598265 |s2cid=11166916 }}
• {{cite web |last=NSTA |first=National Science Teachers Association |author-link=National Science Teachers Association |year=2007 |title=An NSTA Evolution Q&A |url=http://www.nsta.org/publications/evolution.aspx |access-date=February 1, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080202043206/http://www.nsta.org/publications/evolution.aspx |archive-date=February 2, 2008 }}
• {{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald |authorlink=Ronald Numbers |date=November 30, 2006 |title=The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=0674023390}}
• {{cite book |last=O'Shea |first=Paul |year=2008 |title=A Cross Too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917-1943 |publisher=Rosenberg Publishing |isbn=978-1-877058-71-4 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=_ZMaFfg0u–EC&pg=PA20&dq=denialism&lr= 20]}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Painter |first1=James |last2=Ashe |first2=Teresa |title=Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007 |journal=Environ. Res. Lett. |volume=7 |issue=4 |year=2012 |page=044005 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044005 |bibcode=2012ERL.....7d4005P |doi-access=free}}
• {{cite web |last=Pinholster |first=Ginger |date=February 19, 2006 |title=AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event |publisher=aaas.org |url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml |access-date=January 1, 2007 |archive-date=October 19, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019171834/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml |url-status=dead }}
• {{cite journal|last=Scudellari|first=M.|date=March 2010|title=State of denial|journal=Nat. Med.|volume=16|issue=3|page=248|pmid=20208495|doi=10.1038/nm0310-248a|s2cid=26207026|doi-access=free}}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=Tara C |first2=Steven P |last2=Novella |year=2007 |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256 |volume=4 |issue=8 |page=e256 |title=HIV Denial in the Internet Era |journal=PLOS Med |pmid=17713982 |pmc=1949841 |doi-access=free }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=Roger W. |title=Introduction: The Ottoman Genocides of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks |journal=Genocide Studies International |date=2015 |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=1–9 |doi=10.3138/gsi.9.1.01 |s2cid=154145301 |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/journal/690 }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Suny |first1=Ronald Grigor |title=Truth in Telling: Reconciling Realities in the Genocide of the Ottoman Armenians |journal=The American Historical Review |date=2009 |volume=114 |issue=4 |pages=930–946 |doi=10.1086/ahr.114.4.930 |doi-access=free }}
• {{cite book |last1=Suny |first1=Ronald Grigor|author-link=Ronald Grigor Suny |title="They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else": A History of the Armenian Genocide|title-link=They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else |date=2015 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-1-4008-6558-1}}
• {{cite news |first=Gayathri |last=Vaidyanathan |year=2014 |journal=Scientific American |title=What Have Climate Scientists Learned from 20-Year Fight with Deniers? |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-have-climate-scientists-learned-from-20-year-fight-with-deniers/ |access-date=January 23, 2016 |archive-date=August 20, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210820232244/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-have-climate-scientists-learned-from-20-year-fight-with-deniers/ |url-status=live}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Watson |first=James |year=2006 |title=Scientists, activists sue South Africa's AIDS 'denialists' |journal=Nature Medicine |volume=12 |pmid=16397537 |issue=1 |page=6 |url=http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v12/n1/pdf/nm0106-6a.pdf |doi=10.1038/nm0106-6a |s2cid=3502309 }}

{{refend}}

• {{cite journal|last1= Holtcamp|first1= W.|title= Flavors of uncertainty: The difference between denial and debate|journal= Environmental Health Perspectives|volume= 120|issue= 8|year= 2012|pages=a314–a319|pmid= 22854265|pmc= 3440096|doi= 10.1289/ehp.120-a314}}
• {{cite news|last=Kahn-Harris|first=Keith|author-link=Keith Kahn-Harris|title=Denialism: what drives people to reject the truth|newspaper=The Guardian|date=August 3, 2018|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/03/denialism-what-drives-people-to-reject-the-truth}}
• Oreskes, Naomi, "History Matters to Science: It helps to explain how cynical actors undermine the truth", Scientific American, vol. 323, no. 6 (December 2020), p. 81. "In our 2010 book, Merchants of Doubt, Erik M. Conway and I showed how the same arguments [as those used to cast doubt on the link between tobacco use and lung cancer] were used to delay action on acid rain, the ozone hole and climate change – and this year [2020] we saw the spurious "freedom" argument being used to disparage mask wearing [during the COVID-19 pandemic]."
• {{cite journal|last1= Rees|first1= M.|author-link= Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow|title= Denial of catastrophic risks|journal= Science|volume= 339|issue= 6124|year= 2013|page=1123|pmid= 23471373|doi= 10.1126/science.1236756|bibcode= 2013Sci...339.1123R|doi-access= free}}
• {{cite journal|last1=Rosenau|first1=J.|title=Science denial: A guide for scientists|journal=Trends in Microbiology|volume=20|issue=12|year=2012|pages=567–569|pmid=23164600|doi=10.1016/j.tim.2012.10.002}}
• {{cite journal|last1= Sharot|first1= T.|last2= Korn|first2= C.W.|last3= Dolan|first3= R.J.|title= How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality|journal= Nature Neuroscience|volume= 14|issue= 11|year= 2011|pages= 1475–1479|pmid= 21983684|pmc= 3204264|doi= 10.1038/nn.2949}}

• {{cite book |title=Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us |first1=Sara E. |last1=Gorman |first2=Jack M. |last2=Gorman |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2016 |isbn=978-0199396603}}
• {{Cite book | last = McIntyre | first = Lee | title = The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud and Pseudoscience | publisher=Cambridge, MA: MIT Press | year=2019 | pages=149–166 | isbn=978-0262538930 }}
• {{cite book |title= Living In Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life |first= Kari Marie |last= Norgaard|author-link=Kari Norgaard |year= 2011 |isbn= 978-0262515856 |publisher= MIT Press }}
• {{cite book|last= Specter|first= Michael|author-link= Michael Specter|title= Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives|publisher= Penguin|year= 2009|isbn= 978-1594202308|url-access= registration|url= https://archive.org/details/denialismhowirra00spec}}

{{Wiktionary}}

• [http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/ Denialism Blog]
• [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120139776&ps=cprs "Refusing Flu Shots? Maybe You're A 'Denialist'"] National Public Radio

{{Disinformation}}

Category:Barriers to critical thinking

Category:Cognitive dissonance

Category:Politics by issue

Category:Propaganda techniques

Category:Public relations techniques

Category:Science in society