Characteristics of frindge groups

I have just finished reading Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things. I will write a full review of this book at a later stage. However, what I found most interesting about the book was Shermer’s discussion on the characteristics of pseudoscientific and pseudohistoric groups, such as ‘scientific’ creationists, Holocaust deniers and extreme Afrocentrists. These fringe groups make various claims that are supported by very little evidence and their beliefs run contrary to common scholarly views on history and science. Shermer argues that these groups, due to the lack of evidence for their claims, resort to fallacious modes of argument in order to advocate their views. These groups share the following common characteristics:

• They are absolutely certain that they have the truth (pg 206);
• They concentrate on opponent’s weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position (pg 212);
• They exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing arguments, implying that because a few of their opponents’ conclusions are wrong, that all of their conclusions must be wrong (pg 212);
• They use quotations taken out of context to buttress their own position (pg 212);
• They mistake honest, genuine debates between scholars about certain points within the field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field (pg 212);
• They focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasize data that fit and discount data that do not fit (pg 212);
• They rely on post hoc rationalisation, after-the-fact-reasoning to justify contrary evidence (pg 216); and
• When the ideas of fringe groups fail to be accepted by mainstream scholars, advocates propagate conspiracy theories. (pg 206).

Anyone familiar with ‘scientific’ creationism – especially the young earth variety – will recognise some of these tactics.