I've seen many people puzzling over why science denialism exists, and is increasing in prevalence with time. The logic I will lay forth in this post can be extended to other similar such topics and situations. Some of the movements that can be considered in this realm include flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and so on.

Firstly, one must examine the rhetoric put forth by practitioners of science as a starting point for solving this enigma. These individuals and groups always make an effort to present themselves as authoritative and accredited by other authoritative entities. This in itself is ok, as many people will simply accept anything which an authority tells them so long as it's plausible enough. So, these figures can convince people of the validity and truth of their statements on authority. This will reach a large portion of the population. However, this will not work on individuals who don't trust authority figures for one reason or another. And this is where our problem comes in. We need additional evidence in order to convince these people, and that, I believe, is where practitioners of science are failing.

As a sidenote, I would like to concede that some individuals will not be convinced if they find some reason to reject or interpret differently evidence presented to them. However, I am primarily referring to individuals who aren't overly combative and can be convinced of the validity of a claim given reasonable evidence.

Anyhorse, I believe that the failure to properly present and represent the evidence that forms the basis for scientific conclusions and consensus is the root cause for these science denialism movements. It is a failure on the part of the education system, the media, and scientific authorities. They wish to extend blame on the populous for being "stupid" which is valid to an extent, however on this particular point is inadequate. This is a problem that will only grow with time because these "denialist" individuals are not being culled via burning at the stake. If they gain critical mass within society, science will no longer hold its place as the dominant ideology and will be supplanted by something else.

It is not enough to defend a claim with the statement that there exists an overwhelming body of evidence in its favor. People cannot be expected to go out and seek this body of evidence. The burden is on the one making the claim to present the evidence. This is especially important in an academic setting. People have an inherent bias for seeking out information which agrees with their views. So, rather than seeking your body of evidence when you claim they are wrong, they will seek information to the end that you are wrong, regardless of how "valid" this information is or is thought to be. As the numbers of these denialists increase and the volume of information they publish to the contrary of your views also increases, a positive feedback loop forms which grows their numbers, influence, and ultimately destroys your own. This is why science will eventually fall to the wayside with time if steps are not taken to prevent this.

Censorship and violence are successful strategies that have been used in the past to counteract ideas though they are in themselves only tools that accomplish the task partway. It's important to take preventative measures to address the root cause of the issue, such as more convincing rhetoric, and additional provision of evidence in a manner which would be difficult to ignore.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

In the Lost World by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle this is a core theme.
Dinosaurs are found in the Amazon and despite going back to the Amazon on a third expedition, bringing back a pterodactyl egg which hatched in the theater where the evidence of the expedition was being displayed people were still skeptical whether dinosaurs were still alive.
One of the academics that doubted Professor Challenger was willing to at least go on the voyage which risked the lives of leading zoologists of the time.
This is a problem that is literally lethal it occurs constantly and all you can do is hope that you surround yourself with people who are willing to put in the work themselves to understand what the truth is rather than become self important and criticize every claim that they hear until everyone has died trying to prove something to the unimpressed.
In short, people who are adamant.
Being that it is a natural phenomena and lethal I consider this the work of the beast Simia.

Firstly, this is not what Dr. Ray was describing. He mentioned those to whom evidence has no meaning but that was not that primary concern in his treatise. Those individuals aren't terribly common, tend to be unintelligent, disenfranchised, and not occupy positions of importance. For our purposes, they are irrelevant. But these people do fall precisely into the category of "adamant." They are engrossed in their own worldview to the point of being adamantly close-minded. I have seen similar such traits manifesting in certain users on these boards.

The method which we have created for ourselves, for the purpose of the 'credible' sciences, that which is seen as used for defining the barrier between science and pseudo-science–and consequentially, that which makes up both of those categories–is in fact a constraint which hinders further scientific progress to be made. Hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed theories should be given as much, if not more, credence as those which stem from the theories and take for granted the practical implications which they have upon the hypothetical work. Hypotheses should not have to agree with well-confirmed theories.

Science "denial" is, more often than not, the acceptance of hypotheses which do not align with well-confirmed theories, and the criticisms made against said denial will tend to focus on its incongruence with said theories rather than the subject of the matter in its own right. There is no idea that is not capable of improving knowledge.

Khaleeb - go to this post

The point of rejecting pseudo-science is that it's bullshit with no empirical proof or predictive power

The standard by which "pseudo-science" is considered to be pseudo-science, however, does not depend upon empiricism, and instead relies upon its congruence with established scientific theories.

Khaleeb - go to this post

Medicine is the only area of science where information is suppressed. A lot of other shit like Deepak Chopra's nonsense is just stupid people giving history channel level crackpot takes with no proof or reproducible data to back it up.

Untrue. There is a culture of method which appears in all of the sciences. I don't care about alternative medicine.