B8199 - THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF SCIENCE DENIALISM

Learning outcomes

By the end of this course, students will gain foundational knowledge in analytic epistemology. They will develop key conceptual tools to critically analyze and understand complex phenomena like science denialism and the dynamics of scientific disagreement. Equipped with these conceptual tools, students will also be able to propose well-informed strategies to tackle these urgent issues, both within scientific practice and in broader societal contexts.

Course contents

Course description

The course introduces students to the epistemology of science and science communication, with a special focus on scientific denialism and on the public role of scientific expertise. Its central aim is to provide conceptual tools for understanding how scientific knowledge is produced, justified, communicated, challenged, and sometimes rejected in contemporary public debate.

After an introduction to selected concepts and methods in analytic and social epistemology—including truth, evidence, justification, objectivity, testimony, expertise, trust, uncertainty, risk, and disagreement—the course will examine the epistemic structure of scientific inquiry and the ways in which scientific claims acquire authority within expert communities and in society at large.

A substantial part of the course will be devoted to scientific denialism, understood as a theoretically complex and socially consequential phenomenon. Students will analyse what distinguishes denialism from ignorance, error, scepticism, reasonable disagreement, bad science, fraud, pseudoscience, and other problematic forms of scientific practice. Particular attention will be paid to the mechanisms through which denialist positions are formed and sustained, including selective use of evidence, conspiracy theories, misinformation, distrust of institutions, and the manufacture of doubt.

Issues in metascience will also be considered, especially reproducibility, replicability, and questionable research practices. These topics are central to understanding the credibility of scientific inquiry and the ways in which weaknesses, distortions, or incentive structures within scientific practice may be exploited by denialist movements to undermine public trust in science.

A central case study will be climate-change denialism. This will provide the basis for analysing how uncertainty, risk, expert disagreement, and institutional trust are communicated in high-stakes public contexts. Special attention will be given to the challenge of presenting scientific disagreement responsibly, without overstating consensus, oversimplifying uncertainty, or weakening warranted trust in well-established results.

By combining philosophical analysis with concrete case studies, students will develop a critical understanding of the epistemic conditions under which scientific knowledge can inform public deliberation, democratic decision-making, and responsible action.

Readings/Bibliography

The required readings for the module will be provided at the beginning of the course along with the detailed syllabus.

Suggested readings:

• Bardon, Adrian. 2019. The Truth About Denial: Bias and Self-Deception in Science, Politics, and Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.

• Cassam, Q. (2019) Conspiracy Theories, London: Polity Press.

• Gerken, Mikkel. 2022. Scientific Testimony: Its Roles in Science and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Contessa, G. (2025) Science Denial: Post-Truth or Post-Trust?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Cruz, Helen De & Smedt, Johan De (2013). The value of epistemic disagreement in scientific practice. The case of Homo floresiensis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (2):169-177.

• Ferrari, Filippo & Moruzzi, Sebastiano (2021). Enquiry and Normative Deviance The Role of Fake News in Science Denialism. In Sven Bernecker, Amy K. Flowerree & Thomas Grundmann, The Epistemology of Fake News. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

• Frank, David M. (2019). Disagreement or denialism? “Invasive species denialism” and ethical disagreement in science. Synthese 198 (Suppl 25):6085-6113.

• Hansson, Sven Ove, "Science and Pseudo-Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/pseudo-science/>.

• Hansson, Sven Ove. 2017. “Science Denial as a Form of Pseudoscience.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 63 (June):39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002.

• Hansson, Sven Ove (2020). Social constructionism and climate science denial. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 10 (3):1-27.

• Jylhä, Kirsti M., Samantha K. Stanley, Maria Ojala, and Edward J. R. Clarke. 2023. “Science Denial.” European Psychologist 28 (3): 151–61. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000487.

• Kahan, Dan M. 2015. “Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem.” Political Psychology 36 (S1): 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12244.

• Karlsson, Mikael (2023). Denialism. In Nathanaël Wallenhorst & Christoph Wulf, Handbook of the Anthropocene. Cham: Springer Verlag. pp. 645-649.

• Kaufman, A.B. & Kaufman, J.C. (2019) Pseudoscience. The Conspiracy Against Science, Cambridge (MA): MIT press.

• Kovaka, Karen (2019). Climate change denial and beliefs about science. Synthese 198 (3):2355-2374.

• Kuhn, T. (1962/2012) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (50th Anniversary Edition), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Lakatos I. (1078) The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers. Worrall J, Currie G, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Lawrence Powell, J. (2012) The Inquisition of Climate Change, New York: Columbia University Press.

• Levy, Neil. 2017. “Due Deference to Denialism: Explaining Ordinary People’s Rejection of Established Scientific Findings.” Synthese, June. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1477-x.

• Mann, M.E. & Hotez, P.J. (2025) Science Under Siege. How to Fight the Five Most Powerful Forces that Threaten Our World, New York: Hachette.

• Mann, Michael, and Tom Toles. 2016. The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy. Illustrated edition. New York: Columbia University Press.

• Marshall, G. (2015) Don't Even Think About It. Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change, London: Bloomsbury.

• McIntyre, Lee. 2019. The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

• McIntyre, Lee. 2021. How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

• Miller, Boaz. 2024. The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge: Consensus, Controversy, and Coproduction. Elements in the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Nguyen, C. Thi. 2020. “Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles.” Episteme 17:141–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32.

• Norgaard, K.M. (2011) Living in Denial. Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life, Cambridge (MA): MIT press.

• Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press.

• Oreskes, N. (2011) Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, New York: Routledge.

• Potochnik, Angela. 2024. Science and the Public. Elements in the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Psillos, Stathis, "Realism and Theory Change in Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/realism-theory-change/>.

• Sinatra, Gale, and Barbara Hofer. 2021. Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do About It. New York: Oxford University Press.

• Stott, Peter. 2021. Hot Air: The Inside Story of the Battle Against Climate Change Denial. London: Atlantic Books.

• Vickers, Peter. 2023. Identifying Future-Proof Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Watson, Jamie Carlin. 2021. Expertise: A Philosophical Introduction. London: Bloomsbury.

• Winsberg, E. (2018) Philosophy of Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus. 2012. Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teaching methods

Lectures supported by handouts and/or slides and supplementary materials (videos, podcasts, etc.); group work and in-class discussions designed to promote horizontal/peer learning and thematic in-depth exploration of core topics.

Assessment methods

For attending students (those who attend at least two-thirds of the module)

• Group activities during the course (discussion and presentation of thematic insights)

• Short written essay in English (2,500–3,000 words) on a topic covered in the module (chosen by the student)

• Oral exam of approximately 20 minutes, including presentation and discussion of an in-depth article selected by the student from those recommended by the lecturers

For non-attending students

• Written essay in English (3,500–4,000 words) on a topic covered in the module (chosen by the student)

• Oral exam of approximately 30 minutes, including presentation and discussion of an in-depth article selected by the student from those recommended by the lecturers, plus specific questions on the course content.

Students with disabilities and Specific Learning Disorders (SLD)
Students with disabilities or Specific Learning Disorders are entitled to special adjustments according to their condition, subject to assessment by the University Service for Students with Disabilities and SLD. Please do not contact teachers or Department staff, but make an appointment with the Service. The Service will then determine what adjustments are specifically appropriate, and get in touch with the teacher. For more information, please visit the page of the University of Bologna DSA service [https://site.unibo.it/studenti-con-disabilita-e-dsa/en/for-students].

Teaching tools

Handouts, slides, Virtuale, Wooclap, videos and podcasts by experts on core course topics.

Office hours

See the website of Filippo Ferrari