Speaker: Filippo Ferrari (Padua University) & Sebastiano Moruzzi (Bologna University). As part of the Polpost Meetings
Abstract: Science denialism is a widespread and worrying phenomenon. Rejection of standard scientific theories targets several areas of enquiry. For instance: flat-earth theorists deny basic assumptions of modern physics and astronomy; anti-vaccine supporters oppose compulsory vaccination by casting doubts on the efficacy of vaccines and, sometimes, by linking vaccines to severe pathologies like autism; HIV deniers put into question the very existence of HIV; climate-change deniers downplay the significance of the phenomenon and dispute its anthropogenic causes. The main thesis that we shall develop and defend in this talk is that science denialism brings about an aberrant form of enquiry—that we shall call post-enquiry—in which the epistemic norms governing scientific enquiry are deviated in significant ways. Science denialism doesn’t involve just a rejection of a scientific theory; it also deeply challenges the practice, common within scientific enquiry, of continuously and, to a certain extent, impartially testing research methods, theories, and evidential sources with the aim of improving the accuracy of our theories. In this sense, science denialism brings about a radical deviation of the norms governing the practice of scientific enquiry—a deviation which gives rise to what we shall call a normative aberration. We will offer an in-depth analysis of the epistemic mechanisms underpinning the normative aberration brought about by science denialism. More specifically, we will develop a fine-grained framework to model a variety of normative deviances that can take place in enquiry. By analysing two case studies, we will argue that fake news contributes significantly to shape the epistemic norms operating within science denialism. They in fact play two pivotal roles: first, they are used to cast discredit on a variety of (institutional) sources of evidence in relation to a certain set of phenomena (e.g. whether vaccines are safe for the health); second, they also play a part in building the alternative explanation of the targeted phenomena.