Logical Fallacy of Denialism

The logical fallacy of denialism occurs when known reality is ignored or denied.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Denialism

Sandy: "The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are no problem for molecules-to-man evolution, since there are exceptions to the Second Law."

Rocky: "There can be no exceptions to a Law of Science, because one exception eliminates the Law. The so-called exceptions are simply limitations of the Second Law. There can be local increases in a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical or the degree of order in the system, but only at an even greater loss of the same throughout the entire system. No exception has ever been observed. It works in both open and closed systems. So, if the Universe were infinitely old, then it would be in a heat death. And the First Law of Thermodynamics disallows the Universe creating itself."

Sandy: "There still has to be a way this could happen and science will discover it one day."

Rocky: "You do realize that your prophecy is not science, don’t you?"

Sandy is in denial of the facts.

Sandy: "I don’t care about those Bible verses. I’m a good person. There is no such thing as sin or Hell, and every person is basically good. No one has to be saved from anything, least of all from themselves."

Sandy is in denial of the facts. To qualify as denialism, it must be a denial of things that can be defined as known facts, and the facts must have first been presented. It is a fact that God speaks through the Bible and through believers who are speaking by the Holy Spirit. When anyone will not acknowledge what He is saying, they are denying Him.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

This article does not run the odds that a self-replicating life form would just pop into existence. The article only goes as far as the protein, but protein cannot survive until the cell structure, information, coded information systems, and all the amazing mechanisms needed for life and replication. The forming of a single protein is off-the-charts impossible, but a life form, a cell, can it even be calculated? (Article)

Fallacy Abuse

Rational Wiki, an Atheist web site that supposes itself to be rational: "Major scientific targets of denialism include evolution, global warming, the link between HIV and AIDS, the link between smoking and lung cancer, and the lack of a link between vaccination and autism."

In order to make this Fallacy Abuse work, the irrational wiki seeks to control the definition of denial, or denialism as follows: Denialism is the refusal to accept well-established theory, law, fact or evidence. The reality is that irrational wiki's definition makes every scientist who has every made a true scientific breakthrough of any kind guilty of the logical fallacy of denialism, while it claims that all the people who were shown to be wrong after laughing at such scientists as Louis Pasture, to be right at the time for sticking to their failed paradigms. In addition, the irratianal wiki mixes several things in the list that should never have been listed together. There is a link between smoking and lung cancer. There is a link between HIV and AIDS. The rest of the items on their list would need to be shown to be absolute truth before denying them would be the logical fallacy of denialism, however, they have not been shown to be absolutely true. Not even close. As far as molecules-to-man evolution is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence that proves that it actually happened, and there is absolute proof that it did not happen. That absolute proof that it did not happen is revelation from God, the Almighty, Who cannot lie.

Rocky: "Actually, the stories of molecules-to-man evolution are mere stories and are not scientific facts as you claim."

Sandy: "You are in denial. In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial. A common example is Young Earth creationism and its dispute with the evolutionary theory."

Rocky: "Actually, denialism is the denial of empirically verifiable reality. Empiricallly verifiable reality is only that which can be known by means of observation or experimentation, that is, by actual experience. If you are going to make such a claim, you  ought to at least be able to provide empirically verifiable observation and experimentation that proves that the story of molecules-to-man evolution (sometimes called evolutionism) actually happened."

The following two paragraphs appeared in the ever changing, ever inaccurate, struggle for message control that is known as wikipedia.org:

In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth.[1] Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".[2] Author Michael Specter defined group denialism as “when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie.”[3]

In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[4] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[5][6] A common example is Young Earth creationism and its dispute with the evolutionary theory.[7]

Note that, if this were a realistic definition of the word, denialism, then every scientific breakthrough would be based on denialism. Some brave scientists would have to break through the scientific consensus--which is always wrong to some degree. By the Wikipedia definition, every such scientist would be irrational, that is, insane. Every great scientist who ever discovered anything would be insane for having done so. You must ask yourself whether or not this is a rational way to define the word, denialism, then.

Note that the definition is internally inconsistent, since it defines denialism as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed, and then, at the same time, declares that the scientists who support young earth creationism dispute with the scientists who support old Earth molecules-to-man evolutionism—although this internal inconsistency is somewhat hidden by presupposing that the scientists who support old Earth, molecules-to-man evolutionism are right.

Note that the word, reality, was linked to the following: Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

This could not include any theory, since a theory can never be proven to be the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

Note that the word, empirically, was linked to the following: Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1]

This could not include a theory, since no theory or theology can ever be observed or proved by experimentation. A theory is always an explanation that goes beyond the knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. For instance, the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story would require direct observation to prove that it happened. It

Note that the phrase, scientific consensus, is linked to the following: Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

That part of the wikipedia page contained the following errors:

The term, general agreement, was undefined, but the term, general agreement, means universal agreement. So, a general agreement is, by nature, unanimous. The definition is in conflict with itself, or else it is a case of special pleading and the logical fallacy of persuasive definition.

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary, defines consensus as: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group. Therefore, a scientific consensus would require: an idea or opinion that is shared by all scientists. If some scientists disagree, then there is no consensus. However, it is common in the Atheistic religion to envoke the "No True Scottsman" fallacy to eliminate all scientists who don't fall in line with the sacred cow. In reality, there is no consensus among scientists regarding the dispute between Young Earth creationism and evolutionism.

These few excerpts from a Wikipedia.com page give a great example of how many fallacies that are nested together can have a tendency to overwhelm the mind and keep critical thinking from functioning.

Note that the page was then edited to read:

In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection scientific facts. If it were denialism to deny basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial, then every scientific breakthrough would constitute denialism.^[4] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.^[5][6] A common example is the dispute between young earth creationists and molecules-to-man evolutionists. ^[7] However, that example is in conflict with the definition of denialism that "basic concepts that are undisputed."

It was immediately changed back to the irrational version of fallacy abuse. Apparently, structures have been put into place for message control of sacred cows.