In einem auch ansonsten lesenswerten Artikel, in dem es um unsachliche Kritik von Watson an evolutionärer Psychologie geht, stellt Edward Clint die 5 Taktiken von „Wissenschaftsverweigeren“ dar:
Summarizing the work of Mark and Chris Hoofnagle, Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee wrote a paper on science denialism, providing criteria and defining it as “the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.” Denialism employs some or all of the following tactics.
- Conspiracy theories
When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes something is true, denialists won’t admit scientists have independently studied the evidence to reach the same conclusion. Instead, they claim scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The South African government of Thabo Mbeki was heavily influenced by conspiracy theorists claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. When such fringe groups gain the ear of policy makers who cease to base their decisions on science-based evidence, the impact on human lives can be disastrous.
Da braucht man im Feminismus nicht weit zu schauen: Die „patriarchale Wissenschaft“ ist dort beliebt, ebenso wie die Aussage, dass Wissenschaft eh per se subjektiv ist und nur den Interessen der Mächtigen dient.
- Fake experts
These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry, which developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts and attempts to discredit their work. Tobacco denialists have frequently attacked Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, for his exposure of tobacco industry tactics, labelling his research “junk science.”
Eigentlich ist die ganze Genderwissenschaft voller „falscher Experten“. Man sieht es aber gerade auch wieder schön Sabine Hark und Paula Villa (vgl. dazu auch) oder Personen wie Voss oder Fausto-Sterling. Diese täuschen vor, tief mit der Materie befasst zu sein, kennen aber die dazu vertretenen Theorien nicht wirklich.
- Cherry picking
This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. An example is a paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which suggested a possible link with immunization. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association.
Ein gutes Beispiel dafür wäre Cordelia Fine, die vollkommen kritiklos auch sehr schwache Studien als sehr stark darstellt, die ihre Meinung stützen, aber andere, die dagegen sprechen, durch cherry Picking entwertet, ohne dabei zu berücksichtigen, dass es viele weitere Studien und Experimente für diese Ansicht gibt.
- Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
The tobacco company Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard for the conduct of epidemiological studies. These stricter guidelines would have invalidated in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of cigarettes.
Beliebt ist hier „Ihr könnt noch nicht genau erklären, wie etwas in der Biologie funktioniert, also sind alle eure Theorien wertlos“ (auch in der Variante: also sind unsere Theorien richtig).
- Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
Logical fallacies include the use of straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented, making it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environmental tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. This was attacked as nothing less than a “threat to the very core of democratic values and democratic public policy.”
Beliebt sind hier: „Ihr wollt ja nur die 50er Jahre wieder herstellen“ oder eben eine Vielzahl anderer Vorwürfe und logischer Fehler.
Alles Evolution 