This has to be just about the most insulting and elitist thing I have read here on Slate.

First off, the very term "denier" is emotionally loaded, since the only time you commonly hear it used is in "holocaust denier." Since we all think those folks are kooks, anyone who is a "denier" must also be a kook.

The premise of the article seems to be that there is something wrong with our society for so many people to be acting like kooks, and "denying" something that has been PROVEN by science, and that everyone knows is true.

Skeptical about vaccine safety? You're a kook.

Skeptical that observed global warming is made made, and might not be more related to solar activity or a natural climate cycle? You're a kook.

Don't trust scientists when they tell you something is true? You're a kook.

But calling you a kook would sound weak, so we'll call you a denier instead as an easy way to discredit your position.

And by the way, who gets to decide when skepticism constitutes denialism? Oh that's right, Michael Spector gets to decide.

Okay. Call them kooks. Feel better now?

"First off, the very term "denier" is emotionally loaded, since the only time you commonly hear it used is in "holocaust denier.""

Actually I hear from and about climate change deniers way more often than holocaust deniers. The fact is that denial is an apt technical description for what many people do.

"Skeptical about vaccine safety? You're a kook.

Skeptical that observed global warming is made made, and might not be more related to solar activity or a natural climate cycle? You're a kook."

Or ignorant.

Vaccine safety? What about the safety of being unvaccinated, and the effects that this has on everyone around you?

Elitism exists for a reason. You may hate this notion, but people who spend time studying the evidence on a subject in a rigorous and disciplined way have more valid opinions on that subject than you do, unless you're willing to put in the time and effort to review the data yourself. (one of Plato's dialogues... can't remember right now which one... talks about the difficulty of figuring out who is an authority on some subject, since to have enough knowledge to judge you would have to become an authority yourself).

A war of labels, such as "denialist" vs. "elitist", quickly degenerates into a popularity contest. Fortunately, we have mechanisms in place in the USA to make sure that there is a buffer between the ephemeral "will of the people" and effective government policy.

Besley:

This has to be just about the most insulting and elitist thing I have read here on Slate.

First off, the very term "denier" is emotionally loaded, since the only time you commonly hear it used is in "holocaust denier." Since we all think those folks are kooks, anyone who is a "denier" must also be a kook.

The premise of the article seems to be that there is something wrong with our society for so many people to be acting like kooks, and "denying" something that has been PROVEN by science, and that everyone knows is true.

Skeptical about vaccine safety? You're a kook.

Skeptical that observed global warming is made made, and might not be more related to solar activity or a natural climate cycle? You're a kook.

Don't trust scientists when they tell you something is true? You're a kook.

But calling you a kook would sound weak, so we'll call you a denier instead as an easy way to discredit your position.

And by the way, who gets to decide when skepticism constitutes denialism? Oh that's right, Michael Spector gets to decide.

Well, I'd say people who make sweeping dismissals of "science" are pretty kooky. But, what's most strange about your post (to me, anyway) is the notion that you're being asked to "trust" some scientist's claim that something is true. A healthy skepticism is the very heart of science. It's why most scientific research is not considered truly valid until it's been verified by independent research (which, by the way, is why we often read about research that seems to invalidate some previous research!).

So, yes. If something a scientist tells you seems dubious, by all means, conduct your research and try to prove or disprove it. If you can devise a test that really knocks down an accepted model, I can promise you you'll be lauded for it. Of course, your test will also be tested to the same standard. What's a good test? Well, it's something that could be replicated by another party, using comparable methods and data. It cannot rely on "Correct Attitude" to make it have the right results. The results must be observable and measurable and repeatable.

And, if you're not up to devising such a test, you can certainly choose to disbelieve Scientist A, based on something you've read from Scientist B. But simply saying "Scientist B said it" is not likely to persuade the rest of us -- unless, of course Scientist B's work has been validated to the same standards of review.

So you're offended by his attempts to use a less-insulting word than kook?

The holocaust never even came to mind for me. Denial is applied to all sorts of people who refuse to believe a preponderance of evidence.

Denier is a perfectly good word to describe these people, and if they are linked to Holocaust deniers to much the better, since they do the same thing.

When faced with a mountain of evidence simply deny that the evidence is real. They clain that the pictures were doctored, that they studies were faked, and come up with any number of conspiracy theories.

Holocaust deniers, truthers, birthers, creationists, anti-vacciners (whatever you call them) are all deniers.

Some very well respected studies ask the question of whether the flu vaccine is effective at all. If the vac is not reducing mortality, what has been gained?

Science is not monolithic and a variety of opinions exist as to the efficacy of the flu vac. Sadly, you only hear one side and think you know the whole field of research. They are pretty clear that in people over 70, the vac is only 15% effective, but the CDC still encourages them to get one. These studies (and I guess you'd have to call of these respected peer-reviewed publications "deniers" since they question flu vacs) come from all over.

The Lancet <link>

University of Ontario: <link>

The National Institute of Health: <link>

The BMJ : <link>

All of this is reported in the Wall Street Journal as well, questioning the CDC about the number of people actually killed by the flu. <link>

I think some vaccines are great and a boon to mankind. I just don’t think the flu vac is one of them. The GBS risks outweigh the few lives lost to flu.

I have to disagree... there have been tons of other, even more insulting, puff pieces on slate. As for their being 'elitist' - only if you accept the author's definition of elite.