Or in other words, claiming in a debate or argument that the other side’s position is so self-evidently wrong that their ability to recognize truth or logical correctness is manifestly faulty. Or slightly more charitably, claiming that the fundamental axioms their position is based on are incorrect. In formal debating this is usually rejected as an inappropriate tactic. But in everyday life, we quite commonly attribute this to people with views grossly incompatable with our own. When is it legitiamte to invoke this, and on what standards?
It’s legitimate when 1) the evidence for something is extensive and extremely well-documented, and 2) those arguing against it rely on thoroughly dubunked claims, appeals to fear and prejudice and statements by fringe proponents who are laughing stocks in their own professions.
Examples include evolution, the Holocaust, the HIV-AIDS link and the value of immunization.
When people continually deny overwhelming evidence and invoke nonsensical theories that have been repeatedly disproven, they are denialists. You can’t really debate them, you can only lay out the facts for the benefit of others tuning in.
What about evolution? It is a theory, no extensive and well-document evidence. The link between one set of fossilized bones and another is only opinion. Guess I am in denial. Shucks.
So, one man’s truth is another’s fiction, the OP can’t be answered with any precision other than opinion.
That would be the consensus among every poster to this board who has any basic understanding of science.
Now that you have had your gratuitous drive-by, please feel free to stay out of this thread unless you contribute to the discussion rather than trying to hijack it.
Other posters would be well advised to stick to the topic and not engage this hijack, as well.
[ /Modding ]
Deleted after seeing tomndebb’s request.
It’s an argument I never use in the first person, i.e., I never say that to the person. Instead, I decline to debate him or her. It’s a valid argument in the third person, i.e., to point out that another’s position is so fallacious as not being worthy of consideration. An example would be the spate of threads we had a couple years ago about the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
I don’t think that’s a driveby, Tom/DerTrihs. I think lekatt’s point is that you can’t ever “legitimately” call someone a denier because it’s just a matter of opinion what “extensive”, “well-documented”, and “debunked” really mean.
Take evolution, for example. You can call the believers denialists, but they can say the same thing about you. I think it’s always an illegitimate tactic for debate.
What about the Moon Hoaxers? What about the Geocentric Model of the Universe? What about the Flat Earth Theory? What if somebody were to say that the Earth is not only the center of the Universe, and flat, but that it has a radius of 87 miles, because hey, they’ve certainly never traveled any farther than that.
There is a point beyond which something ceases to be a “matter of opinion”. There are things which are extensively well-documented to be debunked, beyond any legitimate opinion to the contrary.
Within the scientific community there isn’t quite so much disagreement about what “well-documented” and “debunked” mean. Studies and research are expected to conform to certain standards.
That’s because they are fools, ignorant, or liars. Denying evolution is like denying atoms, or DNA, or magnetism, or the existence of Australia.
Just because two sides disagree doesn’t mean both are equally valid, despite how popular that idea is. Sometimes, one side is certainly right, and the other certainly wrong. The people who deny evolution can do so all they like, but the question is settled, and has been for a very long time.
While I agree with the cosensus running through this thread I have to play Devils advocate.
Yes people who refuse to believe scientifically/historically proven theories are in denial but for some people who are not great supporters of logical debate the accusation that "You are in denial"is one of their last resort weapons when facts and evidence dont actually back up their theories.
An example of this occurred on SDMB a little while ago.
The premise was that all White people are racists.
The argument went that there are W people who openly admit that they are racists and so they are racists.
But there are W people who say that they are not racists but they are in denial and are still racists.
Therefore all W people are racists,some knowingly,some unknowingly.
I found it ironic at the time that tarring all white people with the same brush was racist in itsself and that the poster who was railing against racism was in fact a racist themselves but in denial.
My bolding
When you can show that the bolded bit is the case, either through hard formal logic (e.g. show that their axioms lead to inconsistent/paradoxical conclusions) or by basic science and observation (and the precarious “scientific consensus”). The only type of argument that’s immune to this is the conspiracy theory types like moon landing hoax believers, where I think they’re enough out of the accepted mainstream that yes, we can call them deniers.
The only problem with this approach is what I like to think of as the “luminiferous aether” problem - when there’s a scientific consensus that’s proved wrong by new work. But then the onus is definitely on the proponents of the alternative theory (quantum physics, in this case) to prove their case, with a paradigm shift in the science. While they’re doing this, I wouldn’t call them in denial, as much as “on probation”. Same for plate tectonics vs. expanding earth theory. Anyone who believes in an expanding earth explanation for continental drift is in denial, IMO.
So, for instance, since there’s a clear scientific consensus, I would say right now Anthropogenic Global Climate Change dissidents are “in denial” not “on probation” - I feel comfortable saying this because of the overwhelming support for AGCC and the distinct lack of a paradigm-shifting scientific revolution on the part of the doubters.
The same goes for Intelligent Design proponents - they’re Evolution Deniers in my book, and like the AGCC deniers, their entire argument consists of trying to poke one tiny hole at a time in the consensus, rather than arrive at an independent proof for their own hypothesis that would constitute a paradigm shift on the order of quantum theory or plate tectonics.
A counterexample would be people who doubt the validity or utility of string theory - there’s far from a consensus on the matter and the evidence is still out, so people objecting to it can have perfectly good reasons for their objections, and the fight is still going on in the literature, AFAICT.
Telling someone they are in denial is just another form of name-calling. There are children in the middle east being taught today that the Holocaust never happened. Millions of children in the US are being taught Creation. I have heard of a group of flat earth people, but never seen any. One can only be in denial if they have been shown both sides of the argument equally and allowed to make up their own minds. Hardly anyone studies both sides of an argument equally, they are raised to believe in one or the other and usually stay with the first one. A falling-down drunk will tell you he doesn’t have a problem with booze. Denial is dependent on a great number of variables which are not seen by the one using the word. Denial is just a meaningless label like all negative attributes we attribute to others. Best to help with education of the individual. Better to light one candle rather than curse the darkness.
OK Tom, I will do as you wish and not post anymore in this thread.
Love
If anyone wnats to open up a separate thread discussing the status of evolutionary science, they are welcome to do so.
If anyone wants to open a new thread discussing what sort of fact gathering, logic, and extrapolations should be deemed legitimate to accept scientific statements, I welcome such a thread.
Wandering into this thread to derail it by making a claim about a tangential topic that will spur many other posters to ignore the topic of this thread to try to “prove” or “disprove” a separate point is not welcome.
I don’t have a problem with you posting in this thread and your post from which I am quoting this line is actually on topic. My objection is to you inserting a claim that you have to know will be challenged by multiple posters in a way that will derail this thread.
I think that one of the main reasons for debate and argument is so that we can see whether our disagreements are in the fundamental axioms we start from or in the conclusions we’ve drawn from them. If it’s the former, we can perhaps discuss why we hold the fundamental axioms we do, and possibly realize that we can only agree to disagree. If it’s the latter, we can look for flaws in our reasoning or seek additional information.
To take just one example, if I disagree with a presidential candidate about fundamental axioms, about ends, about what is inherently good or of value, I’m not gonna vote for him. But if our disagreements are over how best to achieve those ends, or what conclusions can be draw from those fundamental axioms, I’ll vote for him and hope he’s smarter or better informed than I am.
I agree with lekatt that saying someone is in denial is effectively name-calling. It contributes almost nothing to the argument and explains little. However we might do a little better if we ask why the person is in denial and address those issues.
Typically people who cling to positions despite evidence to the contrary have a strong emotional attachment to the position. Evolution deniers have a religious agenda. AGW deniers have a conservative agenda. 9/11 conspiracy theorists have an anti-Bush agenda. They get further locked in because they assume those arguing against them have the opposite agenda which they disrespect (atheist, liberal-environmentalist, pro-Bush). In addition they may see themselves as open-minded while their opponents mindlessly accept mainstream media ideas. Ego becomes heavily involved.
Once people have invested a lot of pride in supporting their own side and have developed a high level of contempt for those on the other side, admitting they were wrong would both damage their own self respect and give support to people they don’t like. Even a realistic assessment of the opponents evidence is very threatening.
If we’re going to get anyplace with people “in denial” we have to address the underlying reasons for their stance and do it in a way that’s as unthreatening as possible.
I disagree - it’s a fairly information-rich term that, properly employed, easily distinguishes the denier from the dissenter or person with merely contrary opinion. You can only be “in denial” when the facts of a case are clear (within its appropriate sphere - so, for instance, scientific facts within the domain of science, historic facts within the domain of documentary evidence etc) and you persist in dissenting. So, to be “in denial” depends on the firmness of the evidence for the thing you’re in denial of. Like - say, denial of the germ theory of disease or that sort of thing.
Well, in the same sense that saying someone is wrong is effectively name-calling. 
This is correct, and in the majority of cases (at least here on the SDMB) that’s usually what follows the claim of “you’re wrong/in denial”. There are times, though, when diving further into the issues becomes an endless journey - especially when someone starts employing circular logic.
It’s legitimate to invoke it whenever you like, but I don’t think it accomplishes much.
If somebody subscribes to (outrageous?) belief X, the better approach, in my opinion, is to simply ask them “What evidence would make you think that X is likely to be wrong?”
Surely it’d be more productive to ask them what evidence they have that X is right? That way you can deal with evidence that is/has been supposedly at hand rather than evidence that maybe has yet to be produced.