Detecting Denial Techniques: Quiz 8

The following are techniques used to deny science. Some techniques are sub-classes of others (e.g., ad hominem is a logical fallacy, false choice is an oversimplification).

Fake Experts: Presenting an unqualified person or institution as a source of credible information.
- Bulk Fake Experts: Citing large numbers of seeming experts to argue that there is no scientific consensus on a topic.
- Fake Debate: Presenting science and pseudoscience in an adversarial format to give the false impression of an ongoing scientific debate.
Logical Fallacies: Arguments where the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premises. Also known as a non sequitur.
- Ad Hominem: Attacking the person/group instead of addressing their argument.
- Ambiguity: Using ambiguous language in order to lead to a misleading conclusion.
- False Analogy: Assuming that because two things are alike in some ways, they are alike in some other respect.
- Misrepresentation: Misrepresenting a situation or an opponent's position in such a way as to distort understanding.
  - Straw Man: Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack.
- Oversimplification: Simplifying a situation in such a way as to distort understanding, leading to erroneous conclusions.
  - False Choice: Presenting two options as the only possibilities, when other possibilities exist.
  - Single Cause: Assuming a single cause or reason when there might be multiple causes or reasons.
- Red Herring: Diverting attention to an irrelevant point to distract from the original argument.
- Slippery Slope: Suggesting that taking a minor action will eventually lead to major consequences.
Impossible Expectations: Demanding unrealistic standards of certainty before acting on the science.
- Moving the Goalposts: Demanding higher levels of evidence after receiving requested levels of evidence.
Cherry Picking: Carefully selecting data that appear to confirm one position while ignoring other data that contradicts that position.
- Anecdote: Using personal experience or isolated examples instead of sound arguments or compelling evidence.
- Slothful Induction: Ignoring relevant evidence when coming to a conclusion. Similar to cherry picking but with an emphasis on neglecting inconvenient information rather than highlighting convenient information.
Conspiracy Theory: Proposing a secret plan to implement a nefarious scheme such as hiding a truth or perpetuating misinformation.
None of the Above: Statement is logically valid and doesn't contain any of the denial techniques listed above.

Identify the denial technique that best matches the arguments below (note that some arguments may not contain a denial technique). You will receive your score after you complete the quiz.

I feel a little bloated today, I’m never going to lose weight!

Straw Man
Cherry Picking
Ambiguity
None of the Above

The word theism refers to a medical condition from drinking too much tea, and the church encourages theism, so the church should give out free tea.

Fake Experts
Cherry Picking
Red Herring
Ambiguity

Cherry Picking
False Choice
False Analogy
Red Herring

Shadows in the Apollo moon landing photos are not parallel, proving that the scenes were lit from multiple angles in a studio.

Ad Hominem
Cherry Picking
Conspiracy Theory
Bulk Fake Experts

Oversimplification
Ambiguity
Bulk Fake Experts
Straw Man

We are very strong on our Second Amendment. ... You know they call it the slippery slope, and all of a sudden everything gets taken away.

False Analogy
Red Herring
Slippery Slope
None of the Above

Scientists weren't afraid to look into the strange physics behind lasers and semiconductors, so I don't think we should be afraid to look into telepathic remote-viewing.

Cherry Picking
Red Herring
Ambiguity
False Analogy

Which argument is logically valid?

All birds lay eggs. A chicken lays eggs. Therefore a chicken is a bird.
No reptiles have fur and all snakes are reptiles. Therefore no snakes have fur.
I have blond hair therefore I’m an expert in quantum mechanics.

Cherry Picking
Red Herring
Single Cause
None of the Above

People are right to be concerned about climate change. But they are also right to be concerned about costly attempts to address it. Instead of restricting options for our next generation by borrowing against their future, we should choose solutions that adapt to climate change, buy time, and maximize the choices available to them in the decades and centuries to come.

What is an appropriate conclusion from this paragraph?

People don’t have to be concerned about climate change as the danger is exaggerated.
Having to decide between solving or adapting to climate change is a false choice.
Climate impacts are decades away so it’s too soon to talk about adaptation.
No misleading technique; this is a sound argument.

The 17th-Century Italian astronomer Francesco Sizzi wrote "There are seven windows given to animals in the domicile of the head: two nostrils, two eyes, two ears, and a mouth...From this and many other similarities in Nature, too tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets must necessarily be seven."

What is an appropriate conclusion from this paragraph?

Ancient astronomy always relied on empirical observations to draw their conclusions.
The head is a good model for the solar system, yielding useful insights into the existence of heavenly bodies.
17th Century astronomy was amazingly accurate for its time, providing predictions that were validated in later centuries.
Just because the head and the solar system are similar in one way doesn’t mean you can assume they’re similar in other ways.

A new scientific report on climate change has concluded that we need to reduce CO2 emissions by 45% within 12 years in order to avoid dangerous climate change. In response, Senator Smith said “The world is not going to end in 12 years as some climate alarmists claim.”

What is an appropriate conclusion from this paragraph?

We have a lot of time before we have to do anything about climate change.
Scientists are alarmist in their predictions about climate change.
Senator Smith is misrepresenting a scientific report in order to discredit it.
Scientific reports are biased and can’t be trusted.

The theory of evolution holds that the process of natural selection and random mutation can account for the complexity of life. But the theory of evolution is just that: a theory. In other words, a conjecture, a hunch, or just an idea in someone’s head. There’s no direct, observable evidence for evolution.

What is an appropriate conclusion from this paragraph?

While non-scientists think of a theory as a hunch, a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world.
Scientific understanding of how the complexity of life evolved is based on somebody’s hunch.
There is no scientific explanation for how complex life came into existence.
Only atheists believe in evolution.

In the following examples, choose the argument that best matches the denialist technique:

Single cause

My opponent wants to invest money in education instead of the military. Why does he hate his country so much?
You’re just overweight because you don’t exercise enough.
People who cannot go without their coffee every morning are no better than alcoholics.

Ad Hominem

I know a Scientologist who is a millionaire. Therefore Scientology will make you rich.
9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration.
Men are the worst!

Impossible Expectations

If you don’t worship God, you’re a Satanist.
Scientific measurements are too crude to measure the effects from homeopathic medicine.
Of course you would say that abortion is wrong. You're a priest so it’s your job to say that.

Any comments about the quiz? (e.g., any difficulties or confusion)

OPTIONAL: If you'd like to be notified of future Denial Techniques quizzes, enter your email: