"On Denial: Why People Reject Science" by Lee McIntyre, 2024: AI Book Review

Introduction

Why, in such an information-rich era, do people exist who believe the Earth is flat? Why do some consider vaccines, which are based on scientific evidence, to be a "conspiracy"?

Every day, we are exposed to vast amounts of information through social media and the news. Among it, there is an overflow of claims that directly contradict scientific consensus, such as the denial of climate change, baseless anxiety regarding genetically modified foods, and various conspiracy theories surrounding the novel coronavirus.

It is easy to dismiss these phenomena as mere "ignorance" or "lack of information." However, will that really solve the problem?

The book "On Denial" by philosopher of science Lee McIntyre is a work that confronts this serious problem plaguing modern society head-on. Rather than simply aiming to debunk science deniers, this book approaches more fundamental and human questions: "Why do people turn their backs on evidence?" and "How can constructive dialogue be possible?"

In a modern society where division is deepening, the insights in this book, which explore the possibility of dialogue with people who hold different opinions, will provide important suggestions for each and every one of us.

Preface: The "Crisis of Evidence" in Modern Society and the Scope of This Book

Modern society is facing an era of unprecedented information overload. Within this, "Flat Earth theory, climate change denial, the anti-vaccine movement, opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and various conspiracy theories surrounding the novel coronavirus—forms of "science denial", which openly reject scientific consensus, have emerged as a prominent social phenomenon 1. This phenomenon is not merely a problem of lack of knowledge; it has become a serious threat that deepens social division and hinders efforts to address common human challenges such as public health and the global environment.

The book "On Denial: Why People Reject Science and How to Persuade Them" by philosopher of science Lee McIntyre is an attempt to get to the heart of this deep-seated problem. This book does not aim to simply list and debunk the false beliefs held by science deniers. Rather, its scope reaches deeper into the human realm. Through a unique approach that combines philosophical analysis with on-site dialogue—such as infiltrating an international Flat Earth conference—the author explores the fundamental question: "Why do people turn their backs on scientific evidence and believe in absurd stories?" 3

The central question raised by this book does not stop at the fact-checking level of "Are they wrong?" The true focus is directed toward "Why did they come to believe that, and is it possible to change their minds?", which concerns the mechanisms of belief formation and the possibility of persuasion 4. This approach moves away from the traditional "deficit model" of science denial—which suggests it arises because of a lack of knowledge—and highlights a more complex reality where it is deeply tied to individual identity, the community one belongs to, and psychological motivations. The fact that the solution ultimately presented by the book is not the presentation of further data, but the rebuilding of trust through "empathy" and "dialogue" 6, suggests that the root of the problem lies not in a mere lack of information, but in human psychology and the breakdown of social relationships. This book is "a compass for dissecting the phenomenon of science denial and exploring the possibilities for intellectual dialogue in a divided society".

Part 1: The Anatomy of Science Denial — 5 Common Tactics

McIntyre points out that although the subjects vary, from Flat Earth theory to the anti-vaccine movement, there exists a "common mode of thinking and argumentation" in all science denial. These are "a system of rhetoric that is the exact opposite of the methods of scientific inquiry, where conclusions are fixed in advance and evidence is distorted to justify those conclusions". The book classifies these common tactics into five categories, and this framework serves as an extremely effective analytical tool for understanding the argumentative structure of science denial 2.

5 Tactics Common to Science Denial

1. Cherry-picking Evidence
This is a method of selectively "picking and choosing" only the evidence, data, and literature that are convenient for one's own claims, while intentionally ignoring the overwhelming majority of evidence to the contrary 6. For example, climate change deniers ignore the fact that "there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers by experts supporting anthropogenic climate change" and present "the few documents that deny that human activity is the main cause of climate change" as if they represented the overall trend 6. This is a fallacy that ignores the weighting of evidence in scientific debate and generalizes exceptional data.

2. Belief in Conspiracy Theories
To explain the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, they lean into stories that "dark forces" or massive power organizations are hiding the truth and deceiving the public for some evil purpose 6. For example, claims such as "the novel coronavirus was artificially created by giant pharmaceutical companies (Big Pharma) that want to sell their own vaccines" fall under this 6. Conspiracy theories serve the powerful function of bypassing the effort of verifying individual pieces of evidence one by one and invalidating the scientific consensus itself all at once by positing the premise that "the entire group of experts is corrupt" 5.

3. Reliance on Fake Experts
This is a method of overly trusting the opinions of individuals who appear authoritative despite not having received professional training in the relevant field or not being supported by the expert community 6. For example, when a cardiologist who is not an expert in epidemiology or virology talks about the dangers of vaccines in the media, it creates the illusion that their title guarantees authority even in fields outside their expertise 6. This is an attempt to reinforce one's own theory by confusing areas of expertise and misusing authority.

4. Illogical Reasoning
Straw man arguments, shifting the burden of proof, and hasty generalizations—these are logical fallacies that are frequently used 6. A "straw man argument" is a method of intentionally distorting an opponent's claim, replacing it with a simplified and vulnerable version that is easy to attack, and then debunking it 8. For example, the claim that "human activity is not the only cause of the increase in greenhouse gases" is a fact that many climate scientists agree with in itself. However, concluding from this that "therefore, the theory that human activity is the main cause of the increase in greenhouse gases is wrong" is an illogical leap that shifts the point of "main cause" to the straw man of "only cause" 6.

5. Unrealistic Expectations of Science
This is a stance that demands "100% absolute certainty" or "perfect proof" from science and judges that any theory or consensus with even the slightest remaining uncertainty is not worthy of trust 6. For example, the claim that "it cannot be said with 100 percent certainty that genetically modified crops are safe" misunderstands the essence of science 6. Science is a process that is open to falsifiability and tentatively accepts the most likely explanation based on evidence; it does not hold up absolute truth as a dogma. This tactic is used to take advantage of science's healthy spirit of self-doubt and to incite distrust.

The table below summarizes these five tactics. It functions as a diagnostic toolkit for analyzing the structure of an argument and identifying which type of fallacy is being used when you encounter science denial.

Table 1: The Five Tactics of Science Denial: A Diagnostic Toolkit

What is important is that these five tactics do not function individually, but rather form a single "epistemological defense system" that reinforces itself. Science deniers start with a conclusion they want to protect (e.g., "vaccines are harmful"). Next, they gather evidence that supports that conclusion through cherry-picking (Tactic 1). When faced with the counter-evidence of scientific consensus, they invalidate it by claiming that the consensus itself is the result of a conspiracy (Tactic 2). Then, to guarantee the legitimacy of the evidence they have gathered, they cite fake experts (Tactic 3), and in arguments, they use illogical reasoning to deflect counterarguments (Tactic 4). Finally, against the overwhelming scientific evidence that still remains, they set an impossible standard of unrealistic expectations for science, dismissing everything on the grounds that there is "no perfect proof" (Tactic 5). In this way, a self-contained fortress of logic is built that can withstand any evidence from the outside.

Part 2: The Depth Psychology of Belief — Why People Reject Evidence

Analyzing the tactics of science denial alone cannot answer the fundamental question of why people are attracted to them. The book's analysis shifts from "what" they believe to the depth psychology of "why" they believe it. What emerges is the fact that science denial is not merely an intellectual error, but is rooted in deeper human, social, and psychological factors.

It is pointed out that many science deniers harbor feelings of social isolation, alienation, or a sense of being left behind by the changing times 5. For those who feel that their voices are not heard or are ignored by mainstream society and the elite, science denial has a meaning beyond being a mere alternative to factual recognition. It becomes a means to confirm their own significance by challenging existing authority, and to gain a powerful identity and sense of belonging to a community by connecting with people who share the same beliefs 5. The author's observation that people who gather in Flat Earth communities are often those who have experienced social trauma symbolizes this point 5. For them, belief is a theory to explain the world, and at the same time, a lifeline to protect their own dignity and restore social connections.

Furthermore, the insights behind this book extend to a more philosophical dimension. It is the perspective that many science deniers are actually people who feel betrayed by their "expectations of science" 4. What they hold is a rigid "view of science" that regards science as a kind of object of faith that presents absolute and unchanging truth. The history of science is a series of self-corrections and developments, just as Newton's laws were superseded by Einstein's theory 4. For scientists, this self-correcting ability is the greatest strength of science, but for those who believe science is a "collection of absolute truths," this change appears as a betrayal, as if "science was wrong" or "what I believed was a lie."

This series of processes can be understood as a causal chain leading a person to become a science denier. First, at the root, there exists a rigid philosophical belief (an error in the view of science) that "science should be absolute truth" 4. Next, by encountering situations where science self-corrects or uncertain situations where experts disagree, that rigid belief system is shaken, and they experience a cognitive crisis of "being betrayed by science." This betrayal creates a deep-seated distrust of mainstream science and experts, and a cognitive void. This makes them psychologically vulnerable, or "wounded people" 5. In this state of psychological vulnerability, they encounter the community of science denial. That community provides them with both what they have lost—namely, "simple and unwavering truth"—and a "powerful sense of social belonging" that heals their alienation. In this way, through a chain where philosophical misunderstanding creates psychological vulnerability, and that vulnerability encourages belonging to a specific social group, the belief system of science denial takes deep root within the individual.

Part 3: The Prescription of Dialogue — A Practical Approach to Rebuilding Trust

If science denial is rooted in a crisis of identity and trust rather than a lack of evidence, the solution cannot be mere fact-checking or the one-sided presentation of data. What McIntyre proposes is a patient but fundamental approach of rebuilding trust through dialogue, rather than "winning" the argument.

The core of this practical approach is the three principles of "empathy, respect, and listening" 5. This does not mean agreeing with the other person's opinion, but rather respecting the other person as a human being and sincerely listening to the motives, emotions, and experiences behind why they reached such a conclusion. The goal is not to convert the other person immediately. Rather, it is to avoid an aggressive attitude and intervene in the other person's thought process through sincere questioning to "sow the seeds of doubt" 7. For example, questions like "What triggered you to think that way?" or "What kind of evidence would make it possible for you to change your mind?" can give the other person a chance to reflect on the basis of their own beliefs without making them defensive.

This approach also forces self-criticism on the side that affirms science. Calling science deniers by mocking labels like "anti-vax" and taking a condescending attitude only has the reverse effect of deepening their sense of isolation and making their beliefs as an identity even stronger 6. The author argues that keeping the door to dialogue open, rather than fueling conflict, is the only way to overcome division. Separating opinions from individual dignity and respecting the other person's humanity is a prerequisite for dialogue 5.

The dialogue method proposed by McIntyre is not just a communication technique, but can be seen as a kind of "epistemological therapy." Because the root of the problem lies not only in the wrong conclusion itself, but in the distortion of the process of facing evidence (epistemology), the focus of treatment is also placed there. The concept of "falsifiability," which the renowned philosopher of science Karl Popper cited as a condition for science—namely, the question "what evidence would prove that theory wrong?"—plays a central role in this dialogue method 8. Asking this question is an attempt to gently reintroduce the attitude of "accepting the possibility that one's own theory is wrong," which is the foundation of scientific thinking, by making the other person think about the criteria for falsification. This can be called a therapeutic intervention that attempts to repair the thought process itself leading to the conclusion, rather than attacking the conclusion directly.

However, this prescription also comes with significant challenges. As one book review points out, the more you empathize with and listen to science deniers, the more opportunities you have to be exposed to their ideas, and there is a risk that the person trying to persuade them will be "won over" instead 6. This indicates a serious paradox inherent in McIntyre's approach. To persuade effectively, one needs to open one's heart to the other, but opening one's heart too much can also put oneself at risk. What is derived from this is that the qualities required of an ideal interlocutor are not just empathy. It requires the practice of a highly sophisticated "detached empathy," which means empathizing with the "emotions" such as fear, anxiety, and alienation behind the other person's beliefs, while not agreeing with the "content" of the misinformation that constitutes those beliefs. Maintaining this psychological balance is the most difficult and essential challenge of the prescription of dialogue presented in this book.

Conclusion: The Essence of Scientific Thinking and Our Responsibility in a Divided Age

What Lee McIntyre's "On Disinformation" ultimately depicts is the big picture that science denial is not just an individual's intellectual fallacy, but a symptom of broader human and social problems such as the loss of trust, identity, and social connection. Therefore, the solution is not to be sought only in the promotion of better science education. It imposes on us a greater responsibility to foster empathy throughout society and to rebuild spaces for civil dialogue based on respect among people with different opinions.

One of the most important messages this book conveys is about the essence of science itself. Science is not a system of dogma containing absolute truth, but a "technique" and a process for understanding the world 4. Its essence lies in the humility to admit one's own mistakes, being open to constant criticism, and the dynamism of constantly correcting oneself based on evidence. If science deniers misunderstand this essence by seeking absolute certainty in science, the true lesson that those who defend science should learn is to embody these virtues of scientific thinking—namely, humility and openness to dialogue—in their own words and actions.

Of course, dialogue with science deniers is a difficult path, and its success rate may not be high 5. However, what this book suggests is a strong belief that even if it is difficult, one must not abandon dialogue. This is because dialogue is the best way to foster new trust and empathy, and it is the only path that will ultimately lead to changes in individual perception and, consequently, changes in society 8. For all those who strive to maintain a society based on shared evidence and reason, continuing to take on this difficult dialogue is an unavoidable intellectual responsibility in the modern age.

References

1. On Disinformation: How to Understand and Persuade Science Deniers - Booklog, accessed September 15, 2025, https://booklog.jp/item/1/4336076197

2. On Disinformation - Kokusho Kankokai, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.kokusho.co.jp/np/isbn/9784336076199/

3. On Disinformation: How to Understand and Persuade Science Deniers - Kinokuniya, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.kinokuniya.co.jp/f/dsg-01-9784336076199

4. On Disinformation: How to Understand and Persuade Science Deniers (by Lee McIntyre), accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.komazawa-u.ac.jp/facilities/library/plan-special-feature/gannoubichoku/2025/0801-17609.html

5. On Disinformation: How to Understand and Persuade Science Deniers - Dokusho Meter, accessed September 15, 2025, https://bookmeter.com/books/21945089

6. [Publication Countdown] Full Commentary on Lee McIntyre's "On Disinformation" Released! - note, accessed September 15, 2025, https://note.com/kokushokankokai/n/n0c6daf7a13ad

7. Rethinking How to Deal with Science Deniers – Journal Club - Hokkaido Center for Family Medicine, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.hcfm.jp/journal/?p=2882

8. Books I Recently Read 654: "On Disinformation: How to Understand and Persuade Science Deniers," by Lee McIntyre, Kokusho Kankokai, 2024 | Nagasaki Mental Co., Ltd., accessed September 15, 2025, https://nagasaki-mental.com/blog/240621/

(Created using Gemini 2.5 Pro Deep Research and Claude Sonnet 4.5)