A Scientific Guide To Countering Science Denial

It should go without saying that science should dictate how we respond to science denial. So what does scientific research tell us? Here's a practical guide to countering anti-science kooks of all shapes and sizes; from moon landing conspiracy theorists to climate change denialists.

One effective way to reduce the influence of science denial is through "inoculation": you can build resistance to misinformation by exposing people to a weak form of the misinformation.

How do we practically achieve that? There are two key elements to refuting misinformation. The first half of a debunking is offering a factual alternative. To understand what I mean by this, you need to understand what happens in a person's mind when you correct a misconception.

People build mental models of how the world works, where all the different parts of the model fit together like cogs. Imagine one of those cogs is a myth. When you explain that the myth is false, you pluck out that cog, leaving a gap in their mental model.

Debunking myths creates gaps in people's mental models. That gap needs to be filled with an alternative fact.

But people feel uncomfortable with an incomplete model. They want to feel as if they know what's going on. So if you create a gap, you need to fill the gap with an alternative fact.

For example, it's not enough to just provide evidence that a suspect in a murder trial is innocent. To prove them innocent -- at least in people's minds -- you need to provide an alternative suspect.

However, it's not enough to simply explain the facts. The golden rule of debunking, from the book Made To Stick, by Chip and Dan Heath, is to fight sticky myths with even stickier facts. So you need to make your science sticky, meaning simple, concrete messages that grab attention and stick in the memory.

How do you make science sticky? Chip and Dan Heath suggest the acronym SUCCES to summarise the characteristics of sticky science:

  • "Simple": To paraphrase a quote from Nobel prize winner Ernest Rutherford: if you can't explain your physics simply, it's probably not very good physics.
  • "Unexpected": If your science is counter-intuitive, embrace it! Use the unexpectedness to take people by surprise.
  • "Credible": Ideally, source your information from the most credible source of information available: peer-reviewed scientific research.
  • "Concrete": One of the most powerful tools to make abstract science concrete is analogies or metaphors.
  • "Emotional": Scientists are trained to remove emotion from their science. However, even scientists are human and it can be quite powerful when we express our passion for science or communicate how our results affect us personally.
  • "Stories": Shape your science into a compelling narrative.


Let's say you've put in the hard yards and shaped your science into a simple, concrete, sticky message. Congratulations, you're halfway there! As well as explaining why the facts are right, you also need to explain why the myth is wrong. But there's a psychological danger to be wary of when refuting misinformation.

When you mention a myth, you make people more familiar with it. But the more familiar people are with a piece of information, the more likely they are to think it's true. This means you risk a "familiarity backfire effect", reinforcing the myth in people's minds.

There are several simple techniques to avoid the familiarity backfire effect. First, put the emphasis on the facts rather than the myth. Lead with the science you wish to communicate rather than the myth. Unfortunately, most debunking articles take the worst possible approach: repeat the myth in the headline.

Second, provide an explicit warning before mentioning the myth. This puts people cognitively on guard so they're less likely to be influenced by the myth. An explicit warning can be as simple as "A common myth is…".

Third, explain the fallacy that the myth uses to distort the facts. This gives people the ability to reconcile the facts with the myth. A useful framework for identifying fallacies is the five characteristics of science denial (which includes a number of characteristics, particularly under logical fallacies):

Five characteristics of science denial.

Pulling this all together, if you debunk misinformation with an article, presentation or even in casual conversation, try to lead with a sticky fact. Before you mention the myth, warn people that you're about to mention a myth. Then explain the fallacy that the myth uses to distort the facts.

Putting into practice

Let me give an example of this debunking technique in action. Say someone says to you that global warming is a myth. Here's how you might respond:

97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This has been found in a number of studies, using independent methods. A 2009 survey conducted by the University of Illinois found that among actively publishing climate scientists, 97.4% agreed that human activity was increasing global temperatures.

A 2010 study from Princeton University analysed public statements about climate change and found that among scientists who had published peer-reviewed research about climate change, 97.5% agreed with the consensus.

I was part of a team that in 2013 found that among relevant climate papers published over 21 years, 97.1% affirmed human-caused global warming.

However, one myth argues that there is no scientific consensus on climate change, citing a petition of 31,000 dissenting scientists. This myth uses the technique of fake experts: 99.9% of those 31,000 scientists are not climate scientists. The qualification to be listed in the petition is a science degree, so that the list includes computer scientists, engineers and medical scientists, but very few with actual expertise in climate science.

And there you have it.

In our online course, Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, we debunk 50 of the most common myths about climate change. Each lecture adopts the Fact-Myth-Fallacy structure where we first explain the science, then introduce the myth then explain the fallacy that the myth uses.

In our sixth week on the psychology of debunking, we also stress the importance of an evidence-based approach to science communication itself. It would be most ironic, after all, if we were to ignore the science in our response to science denial.

The ConversationJohn Cook is Climate Communication Research Fellow at The University of Queensland.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.


    I'm not a scientist but I see a problem when apparently peer-reviewed literature is used as the 'proof' for a scientific theory. I'd like to see some actual evidence. So called 'climate change' is based on flawed computer models, with no actual evidence to support the idea that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing the temperature of our planet to rise to a point where our very existence as a species is threatened. So far, this is all theory.

    The IPCC reports provide evidence that there has been no significant increase in global temperatures for over 18 years, an inconvenient fact to be sure, especially since the majority of the computer models fail to predict any such thing. The whole theory that a rise is carbon dioxide emissions will result in a rise in global temperatures is clearly not supported in reality, since the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere have increased quite a lot over the last 15 years, but the global temperature has not.

    Today there are stories all over the news warning of a possible mini ice age now coming down on us. Obviously this is more proof of "global warming"?

      Yep, we were told that "the science is settled" so the mini ice age can't happen.

      (Quoting percentages of "agreement" is not establishing fact. If 90% of a sample of 5 year olds all agreed 1+1 is 3, it still doesn't make it correct.)

        Except that 5 year old's are not an authority on math, so we wouldn't be using them to decide that anyway. Trying to make a false equivalency between the two is intellectually dishonest.

        If 90% of people who worked on cars said your car was messed up, your car is most likely messed up. If 90% of people who cook for a living said your food is still raw, you should throw it back in the oven. If 90% of any group comprised of experts on the topic at hand agree on a thing, that thing is most likely as they state it to be.

          Mankind is responsible for 3.3% of the CO2 in our atmosphere and the other 96.7% occurs naturally. How do you control anything with 3% to work with?

            Although a large amount of CO2 released is from plants at night, those plants suck up the CO2 again during the day leading to no long term gain in CO2. By comparison if you dig up oil and burn it it won't bury itself in 24 hours (or 24 years...). Thus unlike natural CO2 emission, burning fossil fuels just keeps adding up. More details: https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

      The whole point of peer-reviewed literature is that it contains the evidence, or at least has references to other work. It's not a perfect system, but it is at least self-correcting.

      Your assertions about climate science being based on computer models is a huge misconception. Please read a history of climate science like this excellent read here: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm or this excellent series of videos https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP which are very accessible and fully referenced. Your other assertions are answered and countered within those links.

      You should have stopped at "I'm not a scientist".

      I'm not a scientist but I see a problem when apparently peer-reviewed literature is used as the 'proof' for a scientific theory. I'd like to see some actual evidence.

      I think that's what peer review is. Some scientist goes off do some research, testing theorising and so forth then comes up with a theory to show that their scientific theory is "proof of evidence of something" it is then peer reviewed, to ensure that they are not just making stuff up. Thus providing evidence.

      So I would rather listen to what Climate Scientists have to say over the person with the science degree that did a survey.

      I think I can spot 3-4 characteristics of science denial in this post alone.

      here's a quick question.
      So you have an object that can only radiate a certain amount of its heat, then you lower the amount of heat it can radiate, and increase the amount of heat produced on the object.

      Will it?
      A) get hotter.
      B) stay the same temperature.
      C) get colder.
      D) Jesus will save us.

      I do understand that logic and common sense aren't evidence and record keeping of temperature changes doesn't point the finger at a specific reason for it, but you know.

    I have a science degree and am a very science-type person. I try to think rationally at all times, and try to encourage others to do so also.
    But I generally tend to find articles like this to be less about championing science and more about shutting down things "we" don't agree with or don't like. I find such things disturbing. And anti-science.

    I'm not a climate scientist, but I think it's reasonable for us to take all the biological material that was set down during the Jurassic, dig it up and burn it. There's no reason to think that the release of that material as gas to the atmosphere should return the globe to Jurassic conditions because the baby Jesus loves us and it's all a natural cycle and what about that guy in the seventies who showed that homosexuality was linked to autism and Greenland was once green and tobacco smoke has never been definitely linked to cancer.

Join the discussion!