Science Deniers come in all stripes. Some are right-wing, some are left-wing. Some are anti-government, some are anti-corporate. But if you look closely at all of the anti-science fringe, everyone from global warming deniers to anti-vaxxers to flying saucer fans to moon-landing-was-faked advocates to "alternative medicine" quacks to evolution-denying creationists to 9-11 Truthers to the anti-science element of the anti-GMO movement, we can see that they all use the same basic arguments and rhetorical trickery. These all have the same underlying purpose: to avoid any need for the Science Denier to actually present any evidence or data demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and the Science Denier is right, since the Science Deniers do not actually have any such evidence or data.
So I present to you: "Science Denier Bingo". A board game that you can play any time you run into one of the Science Deniers who infest the Internet. Every time you see one of these anti-science rhetorical arguments, check off a box. Get five boxes in a row on your bingo card, and you win!!!
And in any "science debate", if you see anyone using these arguments and excuses, then you are listening to a Science Denier.
The Science Denier Bingo Card
1. You're just a shill for ___!! The Science Denier view of the world is basically conspiratorial: there is a secret cabal (some favorite Science Denier Conspiracy Theory Bad Guys include The Government, The Communists, The Big Corporations, The Medical Establishment, and The Atheists), and you are either with the Deniers or you are with the Conspiracy. So if you question the Denialist conspiracy theory, it's a virtual certainty that you'll be accused of being part of the Conspiracy.
2. Invoking an unknown mechanism. A classic trait of Science Denial: "science doesn't understand this unknown mechanism". The most obvious form of this Denialist assertion is the creationists, who make "miracles" a central part of their arguments. But other Science Deniers invoke the equivalent of "magic" or "miracles" too: ESP advocates, ghost-hunters, and flying saucer fans are fond of invoking unknown and undemonstrated mechanisms. If something has to be believed in to be seen, then it is not science. And it probably doesn't actually exist.
3. They laughed at Galileo. One of the most widespread traits of all Science Deniers is their massive martyr complex. They all seem to thrive on adversity, and enjoy struggling and bleeding as they hang on their crosses. Not only is it a badge of honor for them to be mocked and opposed by the Unbelievers, but they consider it a positive sign that they are correct. After all, everyone laughed at Galileo ... But then, everyone laughed at Bozo the Clown as well. Galileo, by the way, was accepted by science because he presented data and evidence that could be verified through repeatable experiment (something the Science Deniers are utterly incapable of doing).
4. This YouTube video proves science is wrong! Or this newspaper article. Or this website. For Science Deniers, "evidence" does not mean data provided by the scientific method that has been replicated and verified through testing. To the Science Deniers, "evidence" is simply anything that rhetorically says they are right. Real actual scientific debate takes place in the pages of peer-reviewed science journals: it does not take place in YouTube videos or advocacy websites on the Internet. Whenever one side is presenting peer-reviewed science and the other side is not, you are not listening to a scientific debate.
5. You're just close-minded!! One of the favorite "arguments" made by Science Deniers of all stripes. The most common users of this argument are the creationists, who are always quick to condemn anyone who questions them as "Atheist!"; but since all Science Denial is based on ideology, all Science Deniers tend to view anyone who opposes them as ideological heretics and apostates. "You are just close-minded!" is really a code for "you won't accept it without any evidence!"--and that is exactly precisely correct. Science won't accept it without any evidence. Having an open mind is great; having it so open that your brain falls out, is not so great.
6. Science is wrong because my ideology says so! At the core of every variety of Science Denial, whether acknowledged or not, is an ideology, whether it is the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint of the creationists or the anti-corporate ideology of the anti-vaxxers or the anti-government fantasies of the global-warming deniers. Unfortunately for the Science Deniers, science is not a democracy, and science simply doesn't care about anyone's opinion or ideology. Science cares only about facts and data--which the Science Deniers don't have.
7. Anecdotal evidence. Science Denial does not depend on data or measurements taken from carefully controlled experiment and testing. Instead, it depends on anecdotes and personal testimonials, all of which are accepted on faith. This is seen most clearly in the "alternative medicine" quacks, who do no medical trials or peer-reviewed scientific testing, but who instead offer testimonials such as "my grandmother drank organic kale juice every day and never got cancer" or "my brother in law used (insert alternative medical quackery here) to cure his (insert medical condition here)". These stories are not evidence or scientific data--they are just stories. The Science Deniers like them solely because these stories tell the Deniers what they already want to hear. (That is why the Deniers reject out of hand any equal number of stories with the opposite conclusion.)
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This one is a favorite of ghost hunters, bigfoot hunters, and UFOlogists. It is also used to justify the undemonstrated mechanisms that many other Science Deniers (such as ESP fans and alternative medicine quackery) assert "must" be there. Since they have zero evidence whatever for the actual existence of the subject of their "study", they simply assert that "just because there's no evidence that it's there, doesn't mean it's not there." Well...it sure as hell doesn't mean it is there, either. And if there is no evidence at all that there is a gorilla living in my kitchen, then it's pretty safe to conclude that there's no gorilla living in my kitchen. If you want to argue that there is a gorilla there, then you will have to show it to me.
9. Refusal to provide evidence. The hallmark of any Science Denier. They will spend hours preaching their ideology and telling you all about the Conspiracy against them. But what they will not do, never, ever, even when directly asked to, is simply show us the scientific evidence and data which establishes that the scientific consensus is wrong and the Science Deniers are correct. That is because the Science Deniers do not have any such evidence or data. All they have is rhetorical argument and ideology, and excuses as to why they don't need to present any evidence.
10. You're being mean to me boo hoo hoo. Since the Science Deniers don't actually have any scientific evidence or data to offer, they often attempt to turn the conversation into an ad hominem debate over "politeness" or "tone". Usually, "you are being mean to me!" really means "you are criticizing my favorite ideology!", to which science can only respond, "Tough shit (shrug)." In any case, science is not decided according to which side is the most polite. Science is decided by which side has the consensus of data and evidence--and the Science Deniers have none.
11. I'm not a Science Denier--I just have questions. This gambit consists of an introductory "I'm not a Denier and I love science, but I just have a few questions about it"--and then they go on to parrot every one of the standard Science Denier arguments about the issue at hand. I must admit that I like it when the Deniers use this opening: it shows that science is winning. It demonstrates that the Deniers recognize that most people think they are crackpots, and makes them try to hide their Denialism. But any time you hear someone arguing that science is a conspiracy, that science is hiding the real evidence, or that we can reject whatever parts of science we don't like ideologically, you are listening to a Science Denier. By definition.
12. "Ancient Wisdom". This is a favorite of the "alternative medicine" quacks, but it is also an element in many other Science Denier movements, such as anti-vaxxers and anti-GMOers, who depend ideologically on the "naturalistic fallacy"--the idea that "natural" things are good and "unnatural" things are bad. The "ancient wisdom" folks embrace pre-scientific philosophy such as traditional Chinese medicine, the medieval Law of Similars, Biblical Literalism, and various Asian or New Age "healing energies". Geocentrism and the demon-possession theory of disease are, of course, just as ancient, and just as wrong. None of these ancient mythologies has any scientific validity, which is why every modern society has rejected them and embraced modern science instead.
13. Science is just a conspiracy! Every aspect of Science Denial is a conspiracy theory. Why is the Denialist theory not accepted by mainstream science? Because the scientists conspire to reject it. Why are the Denialists unable to present any evidence whatever for their theory? Because science conspires to repress them. It is no coincidence that Science Deniers in one area also tend to be Science Deniers in other areas. They want to see a conspiracy behind every tree, wherever they look, and usually they find some way to see what they want to see.
14. Cherry-picked data and evidence. Because the overwhelming mass of scientific study and data is against the Deniers, they have no choice but to pick and choose the parts that they can make sound supportive, and ignore the huge mass which is against them. There are thousands of scientific papers demonstrating the human causes of global warming, and only 24 papers that reject that consensus. Similarly, there is only one scientific paper concluding that GMO genes are harmful, and only one scientific paper concluding that vaccines cause autism--and hundreds of papers demonstrating the scientific consensus that GMO genes cause no measurable harm, and vaccines do not cause autism. Nevertheless, the Science Deniers will cite the papers that they like, over and over again, while rejecting out of hand the hundreds of other papers making up the scientific consensus against them. That, of course, is how propaganda is done; it's not how science is done.
15. Real conspiracies exist! Science Deniers love to point to actual conspiracies, as if the existence of Conspiracy A somehow proves the existence of Conspiracy B. The 9-11 Truthers, for example, will spend hours telling you all about how Bush and Cheney lied about the Iraqi WMDs, as if that magically establishes that they planned the 9-11 attacks. Since the Deniers don't actually have any evidence at all for their own conspiracy theory, they attempt a sort of proof by osmosis instead.
16. My one science paper proves science wrong! Nothing in science is accepted on anyone's say-so. When findings are reported, the first thing the scientific community does is test them again, repeatedly, to verify the results. It is only after this process of replication and verification that a consensus begins to develop, based on a large number of studies. The Science Deniers, however, do not understand this basic part of science, and assume that one paper with earth-shattering results is enough to prove the scientific consensus wrong. It's not. One paper, no matter what its conclusions, doesn't mean diddley-doo in science, particularly when it is part of a tiny minority that stands against the overwhelming scientific consensus. That is why even with 24 peer-reviewed scientific papers to their credit, no scientist takes the global warming deniers seriously: their conclusions are out of touch with the overwhelming scientific consensus based on hundreds of other studies. (And the GMO and vaccine deniers don't even have as many supporting papers against the overwhelming consensus as the GW-deniers do, which is why science doesn't take them seriously, either--not to mention that both the GMO paper and the vaccine paper were withdrawn from the journals that published them, as fraudulent.)
17. Moving the goalposts. This usually happens when the evidence against the Science Denier is so powerfully overwhelming that people begin to think the Deniers are simply nutty, forcing them to change their tune. The anti-vaxxers have done this: first waving their arms that vaccines cause autism, then arguing that OK, maybe vaccines don't cause autism, but the mercury-based preservative in vaccines does ...well... something bad to you, and now (since the mercury-based preservative isn't even used anymore) arguing that it's the timing and spacing of the vaccine shots that does some unspecified Bad Thing to people. The anti-GMOers also have moved their goalposts: unable to demonstrate any harm at all from the actual GMO genes, the Deniers have taken to waving their arms about glyphosate instead--which is not a GMO, was used on non-GMOs for two decades before GMOs even appeared, and is still used today on non-GMOs.
18. Your science comes from _____! Because Science Denial is based largely on emotional "us vs them" tribalism, the Deniers simply reject any science or evidence that comes from "the other side", solely because it comes from the enemy. That is why global-warming deniers reject any findings that come from the UN or Greenpeace or Sierra Club, anti-vaxxers reject anything that comes from "Big Pharma", and anti-GMOers dismiss out of hand anything that comes from Monsanto. Any time you hear someone reject a scientific study because it came from someone they don't like, you are listening to ideology and politics, not science. In science, studies stand or fall on their own; those that are confirmed by replicated studies are valid science, no matter who paid for them or where they come from, and those that are unable to be confirmed by replicated studies are invalid science, no matter who paid for them or where they come from.
19. Lack of basic science literacy. Since the Science Deniers view science as just a conspiracy anyway, it is probably no surprise that they demonstrate an astonishing level of science illiteracy. Creationists do not understand even the most basic elements of evolutionary theory; anti-vaxxers have no clue at all what "herd immunity" is or how it works; global warming deniers do not understand basic atmospheric chemistry or the elementary basis of weather and climate. I have never yet met anyone who both rejected science and understood it.
20. Argument from authority. This one is a favorite with creation "scientists", who love to list all their academic credentials (many of them from fraudulent "Bible Colleges") to give credibility to their Science Denial. It's also common with the alternative medicine quacks, who wave their medical degrees as if it makes their anti-science quackery any less quackery. Science is not based on anyone's authority or say-so: science is based on evidence and data. If you have evidence and data, science will listen to you: if you don't, science simply doesn't care what you say, wherever you went to college and got your degree. No matter how many medical degrees you have, for example, plain ole ordinary expensive water ("homeopathic medicine") still doesn't cure anything except thirst.
21. Science hides all the real evidence! The Science Deniers must, of course, explain why they have no actual scientific data or evidence to offer, which leads to the most common trope of all Science Denial: science conspires to hide all the "real" evidence. As an example, the Deniers all love to point to the Tobacco Industry Conspiracy. This is ironic, since the tobacco industry's actual attempt to hide real science was one of the most collossal failures in history. By the 1950's every health scientist already knew that smoking causes cancer, and today all cigarette packages must carry warning labels saying so. What the Great Tobacco Conspiracy really shows is that it is simply impossible to hide science: science is based on simple observation of reality, and reality is always there for everyone to see. Every attempt to quash science, from the Church's effort to suppress heliocentrism to the tobacco company's campaign to hide the link between smoking and cancer, has failed completely. That is why the Deniers can't point to a single scientific study on their pet issue and demonstrate that it has been altered or faked or made up or whatever the heck else they think was done to it to "hide the real evidence".
22. Argument from ignorance. This can come in one of two forms. In the first version, the Science Denier argues that since he can't understand how something can have happened, it could not have happened. Creationists use this version constantly when they argue that "X, Y or Z could not have evolved!" Of course, this is only evidence for their lack of imagination; it is not evidence that X, Y or Z did not actually happen. The second version declares that since we don't know what happened, my Denialist theory must be correct. Of course, the fact that we don't know what happened means only that we don't know what happened; it doesn't mean that any idiotic theory might be true. We don't know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa--but that doesn't mean he must have been kidnapped by space aliens.
23. Science doesn't know everything! This is a favorite of Deniers who hold metaphysical belief systems that are anti-science, such as Biblical literalism or various forms of New Age or Spiritual woo-woo. Of course, science doesn't know everything: that's why scientists still have jobs. But science is the only reliable method we have of learning about the physical world around us, and science is the only thing separating humanity from the Dark Ages. The Science Deniers have no better method to offer.
24. Zebra hoofprints. One of the most important concepts in science is that of "Ockham's razor", which declares that the simplest explanation that accounts for the evidence is most likely to be correct. This concept is often illustrated by assuming that we are walking along on a farm and we find a hoofprint. It is of course entirely possible that the footprint is that of a rare and exotic Zebra that just happened to pass by after being imported to the farm from Africa. But the simplest explanation is also the most likely to be true--the hoofprint is just a horse from the ranch. Adding complications like "foreign Zebras" just makes everything more complex than it needs to be, and assumes more and more things that are not in evidence. Science Deniers, however, routinely violate Ockham's razor, and assume all sorts of exotic and fantastic explanations, based on no evidence whatever, simply because they want those assumptions to be true. UFOlogists, for instance, will often attribute a chunk of metal found at the scene as "part of the alien spaceship", despite the fact that it is indistinguishable from plain ole ordinary scrap aluminum. Whenever anyone continuously declares that hoofprints are Zebras in the middle of a ranch full of horses, they are not doing science--they are doing wishful thinking.
25. Prove I'm not right! Also known as "argument by assertion". In this, the Science Denier can make the wildest most speculative and silly assertion possible, then blithely declare that he doesn't have to support it with any evidence or argument, since it's up to you to show that it's wrong. Of course, that is not how science is done: in science, people making the assertion have the obligation to present the evidence for it--and those making extraordinary assertions better have extraordinary evidence to support it. But, like all the other Science Denial arguments, the argument by assertion has the desired effect of eliminating the need for the Deniers to actually provide any evidence or data to support any of their claims--which is a good thing for them, since they don't actually have any evidence or data.