Denialists and denialism

I’ve detected and faced denialism a couple of times and can recognize it much better than denialists themselves. As a matter of fact no matter how much evidence you provide them, denialists will keep asking more, new and different questions each time, even on ongoing advanced and non conclusive research, repeating the claims of the authorities they believe are the only ones able to be true (ad ignorantiam and ad authority fallacies) because they fight the «so called» establishment. Again they will feel attacked when their beliefs are clearly challenged by overwhelming evidence. They will not arise the previous exposed claims but will bring new ones endlessly.

I could spend the rest of my life investigating things like climate change, AIDS, vaccines, consciousness, building engineering, quantum physics, and the pseudoscience behind homeopathy and still no evidence and formulated plausible hypothesis would really convince them otherwise… ever. That’s when wishful thinking interferes with our ability to reason in the framework of science as the best tool we have to try to understand our world (and I underscore «to try»). I realize it is a possible defense mechanism to hide oneself from uncomfortable truths. I myself have been through that. Everything seems to be a conspiracy or simply biased, thus making difficult-to-stand assumptions (as if such conspiracies really could stand for so long having so many mutually exclusive interests at play). I realize there was nothing somebody could tell me to change my mind. Only self criticism finally helped me to change the way I faced reality.

In any case there are many questions still to be answered in all this fields; as scientific method guarantee will always happen in order to make a better knowledge in an ongoing self improving process. More questions will arise after the previous ones are answered. We still don’t know the exact mechanism of many issues, but we can know how they happen although further investigation has to be performed to construct a better knowledge. But not yet knowing everything does not mean that we have to necessarily respect some non to little plausible claims that ignore all the other evidence leaving in the way many at risk and many even dying in false hope.

Again; questions are being answered all the time, making our knowledge better. Let’s not confuse it with extraordinary claims that do not stand the slightest scientific criticism and ignore evidence cherry picking only what suits their prior beliefs. Criticism is not attack unless they really are only holding on to their own preformed belief, wishes and unrealistic assumptions.

At the end I’ve found out that this is simply a waste of time and that’s the reason I don’t really want to keep with this kind of debate that lead to nothing as one of the parts will never accept the evidence believing that only a full 100% accurate answer is possible and, if not having that, any idea is well suited to be considered as well. Well, not the way science works I’m afraid. The denialists are (unfortunately) free to keep questioning and not accepting scientific facts and more plausible hypothesis, but they will, at the end, have to face themselves and question their real not publicly declared personal interests.

And people who don’t get proper treatment on HIV – AIDS will keep on dying. And I will at least point this out whenever I’m able.

To finish the thread just a line: Those reading this can check the facts, find the information and decide by themselves who is the one who is wrong for it, of course, could be me.

I rest my case.