Article Version of Record

Science and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticism

Author(s) / Creator(s)

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

Abstract / Description

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.

Keyword(s)

rejection of science public involvement in science critical debate transparency harassment of scientists

Persistent Identifier

Date of first publication

2016-08-18

Journal title

Journal of Social and Political Psychology

Volume

4

Issue

2

Page numbers

537–553

Publisher

PsychOpen GOLD

Publication status

publishedVersion

Review status

peerReviewed

Is version of

Citation

Lewandowsky, S., Mann, M. E., Brown, N. J. L., & Friedman, H. (2016). Science and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(2), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i2.604
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Lewandowsky, Stephan
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Mann, Michael E.
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Brown, Nicholas J. L.
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Friedman, Harris
  • PsychArchives acquisition timestamp
    2018-11-26T12:44:57Z
  • Made available on
    2018-11-26T12:44:57Z
  • Date of first publication
    2016-08-18
  • Abstract / Description
    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.
    en_US
  • Publication status
    publishedVersion
  • Review status
    peerReviewed
  • Citation
    Lewandowsky, S., Mann, M. E., Brown, N. J. L., & Friedman, H. (2016). Science and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(2), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i2.604
    en_US
  • ISSN
    2195-3325
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/1420
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.1732
  • Language of content
    eng
  • Publisher
    PsychOpen GOLD
  • Is version of
    https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i2.604
  • Keyword(s)
    rejection of science
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    public involvement in science
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    critical debate
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    transparency
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    harassment of scientists
    en_US
  • Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)
    150
  • Title
    Science and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticism
    en_US
  • DRO type
    article
  • Issue
    2
  • Journal title
    Journal of Social and Political Psychology
  • Page numbers
    537–553
  • Volume
    4
  • Visible tag(s)
    Version of Record