–Y‹p‚©‚ç‚Ì‹AŠÒ

Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee‚͔ےè˜_ŽÒ‚̍s“®‚Ì“Á’\‚ð‚܂Ƃ߂Ă��‚éB‚¿‚å‚Á‚Æ’·‚��‚̂ŁADebora MacKenzie‚É‚æ‚éŠT—v”Å‚ð—ñ‹“‚·‚éB‚½‚¾‚µÅ‰‚Ì5ŒÂ‚ªƒIƒŠƒWƒiƒ‹‚ŁA6ŒÂ–ÚMacKenzie‚̒ljÁ€–ځF.

1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
   ‰A–d‚ª‚ ‚é‚ÆŽå’��‚·‚éB‰ÈŠw“IƒRƒ“ƒZƒ“ƒTƒX‚͏؋’‚̏WÏ‚Å‚Í‚È‚­’k‡‚É‚æ‚Á‚Ä‚Å‚«‚½‚ÆŽå’��‚·‚éB
   
   
2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
   Ž©•ª‚½‚¿‚ÌŽå’��‚ðŽxŽ‚·‚éƒtƒFƒCƒN‚Ȑê–å‰Æ‚ðŽg‚¤Bu”Û’è˜_‚́AM—Š«‚ð‰¼‘•‚·‚鉽‚ç‚©‚ÌŽ‘Ši‚ðŽ‚Â‹^Ž—ê–å‰Æ—vˆõ‚©‚çŽn‚Ü‚év‚ÆUniversity of Connecticut‚ÌSeth Kalichman‚ÍŒ¾‚¤B
   
   
3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
   Ø‹’‚̂‚܂ݐH‚��BŽ©•ª‚ÌŽå’��‚ðŽxŽ‚·‚é‚ÆŽv‚í‚ê‚éØ‹’‚𐁒®‚µA‚»‚¤‚łȂ��Ø‹’‚𖳎‹‚·‚é‚©AŽÌ‚Ä‚éB‚½‚Æ‚¦M—Š«‚ðŽ¸‚Á‚½Ø‹’‚Å‚àŽ©•ª‚ðŽxŽ‚·‚éØ‹’‚ð’S‚��‘�}‚¯‚éB
   
   
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
   “G‘Ύ҂ɑ΂µ‚āA•s‰Â”\‚Ȋ‚ð‘n‚éBŠù‘��‚̏؋’‚Í•s\•ª‚ŁA‚à‚Á‚Æ•K—v‚¾‚ÆŽå’��‚·‚éB‚à‚µ“G‘ÎŽÒ‚ªA—v‹‚µ‚½Ø‹’‚ðŽ‚Á‚Ä‚«‚½‚çA‚»‚ê‚Å‚Í•s\•ª‚ŁA‚à‚Á‚Æ•K—v‚¾‚ÆŽå’��‚·‚éB
   
   
5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
   æk•Ù‚ðŽg‚¤Bƒqƒgƒ‰[‚Í‹i‰Œ‚É”½‘΂µ‚½‚̂ŁA‹Ö‰Œ‘΍ô‚̓iƒ`‚¾BˆÓ}“I‚ɉȊw“IƒRƒ“ƒZƒ“ƒTƒX‚ð‹U‚Á‚Ä’ñŽ¦‚µA‚»‚̘mlŒ`‚ð‘Å‚¿“|‚·B
   
   
6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.
   ‹^‚��‚ð‘n‚肾‚·B‰ÈŠwŽÒ‚½‚¿‚̈ӌ©‚ÍŠ„‚ê‚��‚é‚Ƃ��‚¤‹U‚è‚Ì•`ŽÊ‚ðs‚��A‰ÈŠwŽÒ‚½‚¿‚̏•Œ¾‚ÌŠî‚­­ô‚ÍŽžŠú®‘‚¾‚ÆŽå’��‚·‚éBu—¼‘¤v‚̈ӌ©‚ð’®‚­•K—v‚ª‚ ‚é‚ÆŽå’��‚µAu”ñŽå—��v‚̘_‚âê–å‰Æ‚ª”ے肳‚ê‚é‚ƁAŒŸ‰{‚¾‚Æ‹©‚ԁB
   

‚�}‚ê‚ç‚͖ڐV‚µ‚��‚à‚Ì‚Å‚Í‚È‚­A]—ˆ‚©‚çŠÏŽ@‚³‚ê‚Ä‚«‚½‚�}‚Ƃ̂܂Ƃ߁B

Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee‚͂�}‚̂悤‚Ȕےè˜_ŽÒ‚ɑ΂µ‚āA

Denialists are driven by a range of motivations. For some it is greed, lured by the corporate largesse of the oil and tobacco industries. For others it is ideology or faith, causing them to reject anything incompatible with their fundamental beliefs. Finally there is eccentricity and idiosyncrasy, sometimes encouraged by the celebrity status conferred on the maverick by the media.

”Û’è˜_ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚Í—lX‚È“®‹@‚ðŽ‚Á‚��‚éB‚ ‚éŽÒ‚½‚¿‚͐ΖûŽY‹Æ‚âƒ^ƒoƒR‰ïŽÐ‚Ì‹C‘O‚Ì—Ç‚³‚É’Þ‚ç‚ê‚éB‚Ü‚½‚ ‚éŽÒ‚½‚¿‚̓CƒfƒIƒƒM[‚ƐM‹Â‚ð“®‹@‚Æ‚µAŽ©•ª‚½‚¿‚̍ª–{“I‚ȐM‹Â‚É”½‚·‚é‚à‚͉̂½‚Å‚à”Û’è‚·‚éB‚»‚µ‚čŌã‚́AƒGƒLƒZƒ“ƒgƒŠƒbƒN‚ ‚é‚��‚Í“ÁˆÙ«BŽž‚ɂ̓ƒfƒBƒA‚ňê•C˜T‚ÆŽ‚¿ã‚��‚ç‚ꂽ—L–¼l‚̗��êB

Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so.

“®‹@‚ª‰½‚Å‚ ‚êAd—v‚Ȃ�}‚Æ‚Í’¼–Ê‚µ‚��‚é‚à‚Ì‚ª”Û’è˜_‚¾‚Æ”FŽ¯‚·‚é‚�}‚Æ‚¾B’ʏí‚ÌŠwp“I‚È”½‰ž‚́A˜_‘ˆ‚̉ߒö‚Ő^ŽÀ‚ª–¾‚ç‚©‚É‚È‚é‚Æ‚ÌŠú‘Ò‚Ì‚à‚ƂɁA“G‘΂·‚é˜_‚Ƃ̘_‘ˆ‚ðs‚��AˆÙ‚Ȃ錩•û‚ɂ‚��‚Ä‹­‚��‚Ƃ�}‚ë‚ÆŽã‚��‚Ƃ�}‚ë‚ðŒŸØ‚·‚éB‚µ‚©‚µA‚�}‚ꂪï¿½ï¿½—��‚·‚é‚ɂ͘_‘ˆ‚Ì—¼‘¤‚ªŠî–{“I‚ȃ‹[ƒ‹‚ɏ]‚¤•K—v‚ª‚ ‚éB‚½‚Æ‚¦‚΁AØ‹’‘S‘Ì‚ðŒ©‚ÄAˆÓ}“I˜c‹È‚ð‹‘”Û‚µA˜_—‚̌�L‘\‚ðŽó‚¯“ü‚ê‚é‚ȂǁB“–Ž–ŽÒ‚̈ê•û‚ª‚�}‚ê‚ç‚̃‹[ƒ‹‚ð‹‘”Û‚·‚ê‚΁A—LˆÓ‹`‚È‹c˜_‚Í•s‰Â”\‚É‚È‚éB‚µ‚©‚µA‚»‚ê‚Å‚à”Û’è˜_ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚𐺂ð—}ˆ³‚·‚é‚�}‚Æ‚ÍŠÔˆá‚Á‚��‚éB‚»‚¤‚Å‚Í‚È‚­‚āA–â‘è‚Æ‚µ‚��‚éƒe[ƒ}‚̘_‘ˆ‚©‚çA”Û’è˜_ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚̐íp‚ðlX‚Ì–Ú‚ÉŽ¦‚µA”Û’è˜_ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ª‰½ŽÒ‚Å‚ ‚é‚©‚𖾂炩‚É‚·‚é‚�}‚ƂɃVƒtƒg‚·‚�~‚«‚Å‚ ‚éB‚�}‚ê‚ðs‚¤‚̂ɁAã‹L‚Ì5‚‚̐ípƒŠƒXƒg‚ª–ð‚ɗ��‚‚¾‚낤B

[Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee: "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?", The European Journal of Public Health 2009 19(1):2-4; doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139 ]

”Û’è˜_ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚̂Ɛí“��‚ł́A”Û’è˜_ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚Ƃ̘_‘ˆ‚Å‚Í‚È‚­A”Û’è˜_ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚̐íp‚Ɖ½ŽÒ‚Å‚ ‚é‚©‚ðlX‚É’m‚炵‚ß‚és“®‚ª•K—v‚¾‚Ƃ��‚¤B

‚�}‚ê‚Í‘¼‚̐lX‚àŽw“E‚·‚é‚Ƃ�}‚ë‚Å‚ ‚èA‚½‚Æ‚¦‚ÎDr. Stephen J Gould‚©‚ç’¼Ú˜_‘ˆ‚ð”ð‚¯‚é‚悤‚ɏ•Œ¾‚³‚ꂽDr. Richard Dawkins‚͈ȌãA–{‚⃁ƒfƒBƒA‚È‚Ç‚ÌŽè’i‚Őí“��‚ð‘�}s‚µ‚��‚éB

‚Ü‚½AHIV”Û’è˜_‚ł́A–³Ž‹‚µ‚½‚�}‚Æ‚ªA”íŠQ‚ÌŠg‘å‚ðµ‚ï¿½ï¿½‚½‚ÆTara C Smith‚ÍŽw“E‚·‚éB