Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Data

Description: Science deniers question scientific milestones and spread misinformation, contradicting decades of scientific endeavour. Advocates for science need effective rebuttal strategies and are concerned about backfire effects in public debates. Six experiments assess how to mitigate a denier’s influence on the audience. An internal meta-analysis across all experiments reveals that not responding to science deniers has a negative effect on attitudes towards behaviours favoured by science (e.g. vaccination) and intentions to perform these behaviours. Providing the facts regarding the topic or uncovering the rhetorical techniques typical for denialism had positive effects. We find no evidence that complex combinations of topic and technique rebuttal are more effective than single strategies, nor that rebutting science denialism in public discussions backfires, not even in vulnerable groups (e.g. U.S. conservatives). As science deniers use the same rhetoric across domains, uncovering their rhetorical techniques is an effective and economic extension of the advocates’ toolbox.