Multiplicities In Paradise

W e have been discussing the willful disregard of factual evidence by ideologically motivated groups or individuals. Whether it's science denial, election denial, reality denial, or history denial it all causes harm.  The world is confusing enough without the pollution of disinformation. L et me clarify in part 2 that we are not talking just about cognitive biases here. This isn’t a question of the human tendency to pay more attention to evidence supporting one’s view while attempting to ignore contrary evidence. Intelligent human beings have the ability to rationalize the discrepancy between what we want to believe and what the world is like. These type of issues effect all human beings, and can be accounted for and at the least partially dealt with in the course of normal discussions about whatever it is we disagree about. Rather, the Oxford dictionary defines a denialist as “a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of

"Denialism is an irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality." That's how psychology defines it. Most of our modern problems are a result of clinging to a desperate denial of something. Reality and Science in particular.  D enialism is a sort of expansion of denial. We might say denial and denialism are simply a subset of the many ways humans have developed to use language to deceive others and themselves. Denial can be as simple as refusing to accept that someone else is speaking truthfully. Denial can be as unfathomable as the multiple ways we avoid acknowledgement of our own  weaknesses, fallibilities, or control scandalous desires. Some degree of denial may serve a function, in that it lets socialization occur more smoothly. Denialism however, is more than just another manifestation of the humdrum intricacies of our deceptions and self-deceptions that occur in the