How to Talk to a Science Denier

1. Science Denial: A Dangerous, Pervasive Threat

The Flat Earthers may have seemed harmless, but this kind of science denial could kill us.

Truth under assault. For years, truth has been under assault, with feelings often outweighing evidence and ideology ascending. This "reality denial" traces back to science denial, which has festered since the 1950s when tobacco companies first engineered misinformation campaigns. Today, this blueprint is applied to various issues, from Flat Earth to climate change, creating a society where objective facts are constantly contested.

Global emergency. The consequences of widespread science denial are dire, particularly for critical issues like climate change. The UN IPCC warns of a dangerous tipping point, with global warming accelerating faster than expected. Polar ice caps could vanish by 2030, coral reefs by 2040, and sea levels could rise significantly, leading to catastrophic human and economic costs if inaction persists.

Beyond harmless beliefs. While some forms of denial, like Flat Earth, might seem absurd or harmless, they contribute to a broader culture of denial that has tangible, dangerous impacts. This culture enables:

• Refusal to vaccinate children, leading to outbreaks.
• Political inaction on climate change.
• Resistance to public health measures during pandemics.
  The author's experience at a Flat Earth convention revealed a committed, organized movement, not just a fringe joke, highlighting the menace denial poses to science and education.

2. The Five-Trope Playbook: Common Tactics of Deniers

Although the content of their belief systems differs, all science denial seems grounded in the same few mistakes in human reasoning.

A common blueprint. After extensive study, researchers have identified five common reasoning errors that form a universal blueprint for science deniers. These tactics create a counter-narrative to challenge scientific consensus, giving the appearance of legitimate debate where none exists. This script is not accidental but a deliberately crafted strategy.

The five core tropes:

• Cherry-picking evidence: Selectively choosing data that supports a favored hypothesis while ignoring contradictory evidence.
• Belief in conspiracy theories: Asserting hidden, malevolent forces are suppressing the truth, often without credible evidence.
• Reliance on fake experts: Promoting individuals without relevant credentials while denigrating genuine experts.
• Committing logical errors: Employing fallacies like straw man, red herring, or false dichotomy to mislead.
• Setting impossible expectations: Demanding 100% proof or certainty from science, which is inherently fallible.

Corrupt reasoning. These tropes reveal a fundamental corruption in reasoning, where the goal is to confirm pre-existing beliefs rather than rigorously test them against reality. This bad-faith approach undermines the scientific process, which relies on a willingness to change hypotheses when evidence dictates. Deniers often use a double standard, demanding impossible proof for opposing views while accepting scant evidence for their own.

3. Identity, Not Just Information, Drives Denial

What they believe is a reflection of who they are.

Beyond facts. The central issue in belief formation, even on empirical topics, is often identity, not merely evidence. People's beliefs are deeply intertwined with their self-identity, reflecting the kind of person they aspire to be and the groups they belong to. Attacks on these beliefs are perceived as attacks on their identity, leading to strong resistance.

Identity-protective cognition. Yale scholar Dan Kahan's research demonstrates that when scientific topics become ideologically charged, people's reasoning skills are compromised. They interpret data to align with their pre-existing political or social identities, rather than seeking the objectively correct answer. Being better at math, for instance, doesn't help partisans converge on truth when their identity is threatened; it often drives them further apart.

Psychological roots:

• Fear and anxiety: Denial can be a coping mechanism for feelings of anxiety or loss of control in the face of upsetting events.
• Ego and belonging: Belief in "hidden knowledge" can boost ego, making individuals feel part of an elite group.
• Alienation: Trauma or marginalization can draw individuals to conspiracy theories that explain their grievances.
  These psychological forces make individuals susceptible to misinformation, as it offers comfort and reinforces their chosen identity.

4. Facts Alone Rarely Change Deeply Held Beliefs

The mistake made by people who form their beliefs on the evidence is thinking that if the person with whom they’re speaking just had a certain piece of evidence then they wouldn’t believe what they do.

The information deficit model's flaw. The common assumption that science denial stems from a lack of information—the "information deficit model"—is often incorrect. Simply providing more facts to a denier is usually ineffective because their beliefs are not solely based on evidence. This approach fails to address the deeper psychological and identity-based motivations.

Backfire effect revisited. Early research suggested that presenting corrective information could sometimes backfire, making partisans cling more strongly to their mistaken beliefs. While later studies largely debunked the "backfire effect" as a widespread phenomenon, they confirmed that most subjects still resist changing their minds based on corrective information. People are "fact resistant, but not fact immune."

Beyond the lab. Experimental settings, whether online or by phone, have limitations in replicating real-world belief change. Anecdotal accounts consistently show that genuine conversion of deeply committed deniers occurs within the context of:

• Trusted, personal relationships.
• Face-to-face engagement.
• Patient listening and respectful dialogue.
  These elements are crucial for addressing the identity threat that new information poses and helping individuals reshape their worldview.

5. Trust, Respect, and Empathy: The Foundation for Dialogue

If you respect them, and make an effort to understand their argument, then they will appreciate this, and in turn will respect you more.

Building bridges. To effectively engage science deniers, a personal touch is paramount. Instead of confrontation or insult, the approach must be non-threatening, aiming to build trust and rapport. This involves:

• Keeping emotions out of the exchange.
• Discussing, not attacking.
• Listening carefully and articulating the other's position accurately.
• Showing genuine respect, even for opposing views.
  This creates a psychologically safe environment where dialogue can occur.

The power of personal connection. Real-world examples of belief change, from anti-vaxxers to former white supremacists, consistently highlight the transformative power of personal relationships. Individuals are more likely to reconsider their views when the information comes from someone they trust, who has taken their doubts seriously and engaged with patience and warmth. This human connection helps overcome the alienation often felt by deniers.

Beyond facts, to values. Changing someone's beliefs often requires more than just presenting facts; it involves reshaping their identity and values. When a denier feels respected and understood, they may become more open to considering new perspectives. This process is about inviting them to "try on a new identity" that values evidence and scientific thinking, rather than forcing a change.

6. The "What Would Change Your Mind?" Question

What specific evidence would it take to prove to you that your belief in Flat Earth was wrong?

A philosophical challenge. The author found a powerful question to engage deniers: "What evidence, if it existed, would it take to convince you that you were wrong?" This question is both philosophically respectable and personal, forcing deniers to articulate the falsifiability criteria for their beliefs. It disarms them by shifting the focus from proving them wrong to understanding their reasoning process.

Exposing inconsistencies. When confronted with this question, deniers often struggle, revealing the non-empirical nature of their beliefs. For instance, a Flat Earther might propose an experiment (like a flight over Antarctica) but then retract, claiming even that evidence could be faked. This exposes their reliance on conspiracy theories to protect their worldview, demonstrating that their beliefs are not truly based on evidence.

The scientific attitude. This question embodies the core of the scientific attitude: a willingness to change one's hypothesis if it doesn't fit the evidence. Deniers, by contrast, often lack this fundamental commitment. The goal is not necessarily to achieve immediate conversion, but to plant a seed of doubt and encourage self-reflection on the integrity of their reasoning.

7. Technique Rebuttal: Exposing Flawed Reasoning

Once you have studied the mistakes that are common to their arguments—reliance on conspiracy theories, cherry-picking evidence, reliance on fake experts, setting impossible expectations for science, and using illogical reasoning—you have the secret decoder ring that will provide a universal strategy for fighting back against all forms of science denial.

A universal strategy. Research by Schmid and Betsch provides empirical evidence that "technique rebuttal" is an effective strategy against science denial. This involves directly pointing out the five common reasoning errors deniers use, rather than just refuting the content of their claims. This approach empowers anyone, not just scientists, to challenge misinformation.

Empowering advocates. The effectiveness of technique rebuttal means that advocates for science don't need to be experts in every scientific field to push back. By understanding the common rhetorical tricks, they can:

• Identify cherry-picked evidence.
• Expose reliance on fake experts.
• Highlight illogical reasoning.
• Challenge impossible demands for scientific certainty.
• Unmask underlying conspiracy theories.
  This provides a "secret decoder ring" to universally combat denial.

Mitigating misinformation. While technique rebuttal may not always overturn deeply entrenched beliefs, it is effective in mitigating the impact of misinformation, especially on those who have recently been exposed to it. Doing nothing is the worst response; actively challenging misinformation, even by exposing flawed reasoning, is crucial to prevent it from festering and solidifying.

8. The Malicious Origins of Climate Denial

Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.

Engineered doubt. Climate change denial is not an organic phenomenon but a deliberately manufactured campaign of disinformation. Its blueprint was established by tobacco companies in the 1950s to fight science linking smoking to cancer. This "tobacco strategy" was later adopted by fossil fuel interests to sow doubt about global warming.

Corporate and political interests. Powerful entities, including major oil and gas companies and conservative political networks, have poured millions into funding climate denial. This money supports:

• Think tanks and lobbying efforts.
• Industry-friendly research and conferences.
• Media campaigns to question scientific consensus.
  The goal is to create confusion and delay action, protecting economic interests at the expense of public understanding and the planet.

A partisan chasm. This orchestrated campaign has successfully politicized climate change, creating a deep partisan divide, especially in the U.S. What began as corporate self-interest evolved into a political litmus test, where denying climate change became part of a conservative identity. This makes it challenging to address the issue, as belief is driven by political affiliation rather than scientific evidence.

9. Liberal Science Denial: The Case of GMOs

There is … zero evidence that any genetically modified foods in existence today pose a health risk to anyone … [but] we cannot criticise global warming skeptics for denying the scientific consensus on climate when we ignore the same consensus on both the safety and the beneficial uses of … genetic engineering.

A neglected example. While much attention focuses on right-wing science denial, the opposition to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) presents a compelling case for liberal science denial. Despite overwhelming scientific consensus on the safety of current GMO foods, significant public resistance persists, often rooted in liberal ideological concerns.

The "unnatural" argument. Many GMO opponents, including self-identified liberals, express discomfort with "messing with their food" or "tampering with natural processes." This often stems from:

• Distrust of large agricultural corporations (e.g., Monsanto).
• Concerns about environmental impact (e.g., pesticide use, biodiversity).
• A "precautionary principle" mindset, demanding absolute proof of safety before acceptance.
  These concerns, while sometimes valid in their ethical or environmental framing, often lead to a rejection of scientific findings on food safety.

Devastating consequences. The anti-GMO movement, particularly in Europe, has successfully blocked the adoption of genetically modified crops, including "golden rice" designed to combat vitamin A deficiency in developing countries. This ideological opposition, despite lacking scientific evidence of harm, has potentially led to preventable deaths from malnutrition, highlighting the real-world impact of denial, regardless of its political leaning.

10. Lessons from COVID-19: Denial's Real-Time Impact

The virus has shown that if you wait until you can see the impact, it is too late to stop it.… You have to act in a way that looks disproportionate to what the current reality is, because you have to react to where that exponential growth will take you … Covid-19 is climate on warp speed.

Denial in real-time. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a stark, real-time demonstration of science denial's deadly consequences. Political leaders, notably President Trump, actively engaged in denial, downplaying the virus's severity, promoting unproven cures, and politicizing public health measures like mask-wearing. This mirrored the five-trope playbook, but at an accelerated pace.

Conspiracy theories abound. The crisis fueled a plethora of conspiracy theories, from the virus being a bioweapon or a "deep state" plot, to claims that it was a hoax or caused by 5G cell towers. These theories, amplified by social media and foreign influence, sowed confusion and distrust, hindering effective public health responses.

Tragic consequences. The denial led to a fatal delay in implementing effective strategies, resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. The economic imperative to "reopen" often overshadowed public health, demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice lives for economic gain. This starkly illustrates the dangers of prioritizing ideology and short-term interests over scientific evidence and collective well-being.

11. Unify and Conquer: Strategies for Combating Denial

What worries me most right now is that the distrust we’re seeing today will happen with vaccines.

Beyond individual conversion. While individual conversations are vital, combating widespread science denial requires systemic approaches. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for unified action and effective communication strategies to counter misinformation and rebuild trust.

Effective communication tools:

• Visual data: Graphs, charts, and maps (e.g., showing COVID-19 hotspots) are powerful in demonstrating reality and compelling action, even for resistant audiences.
• Emphasize consensus: Highlighting the overwhelming scientific consensus on an issue (e.g., 97% agreement on climate change) can shift perceptions, especially among conservatives.
• Personal engagement: Face-to-face conversations, showing humility, respect, and transparency, are crucial for building trust and rapport, making individuals more receptive to evidence.

Addressing the "why": Understanding the underlying motivations for denial—fear, alienation, identity—is key. Instead of shaming, public health officials and scientists must communicate uncertainty transparently, admit when knowledge evolves, and explain the reasoning behind recommendations. This humility can build credibility and counter suspicion.

12. The Cure for Post-Truth: Embracing Scientific Values

If we can build back some trust through renewed outreach, we just might be able to solve the problems of belief, caring, and action all at once.

A broader crisis. Science denial is a significant root of the "post-truth" era, where political agendas subordinate reality. The solution to science denial, and by extension, to healing our polarized politics, lies in fostering dialogue and rebuilding trust across divides. This means engaging with those who disagree, not just those who already agree.

Teaching scientific values. Effective science education should go beyond facts to teach the values and processes of science:

• Openness and transparency.
• Humility and respect for uncertainty.
• Courage to expose work to rigorous testing.
• Learning from failure and adapting to new evidence.
  This approach helps individuals think like scientists, appreciate the value of empirical inquiry, and channel doubt constructively.

Enlarging the circle of concern. The ultimate challenge is to get people not just to change their beliefs, but to enlarge their "circle of concern"—to care about issues and people beyond their immediate experience. Whether it's a Maldivian fisherman facing rising seas or a Pennsylvania coal miner worried about jobs, connecting on a human level can foster empathy and motivate collective action. This investment in common humanity is essential for addressing global crises like climate change and future pandemics.

Last updated: November 17, 2025