Denialism

There is something profoundly disturbing about denialism. Beyond the fact that, just one click away, people and groups thrive by claiming that viruses are an invention, that planes spray chemicals, that the Nazi Holocaust never existed or that 5G technology weakens the immune system, what is truly perplexing is what this phenomenon reveals about ourselves: the extraordinary human capacity to ignore evidence when it becomes uncomfortable.

Accepting scientific or historical facts sometimes carries a high psychological cost. It means admitting that an entire ideological framework is false and that our reference figures are lying. Faced with that painful possibility, denial presents itself as a simple and cost-free refuge. It thrives on fear, uncertainty and distrust.

Human beings manage the fear of chaos through beliefs that provide us with meaning and a sense of permanence. When a threat, whether a pandemic or a climate crisis, endangers that worldview, denial acts as a psychological shield.

Something similar happens with history. Societies that have experienced dictatorships or genocides often react by whitewashing the past, minimising crimes or equating victims and perpetrators in the name of a supposed “reconciliation”.

The problem becomes worse when denial turns into a manufactured product. Disinformation campaigns about tobacco, climate or vaccines are not spontaneous: they are designed by industries with economic interests in order to manipulate, sow doubt and inflate false debates.

This is compounded by a crisis of trust in institutions. We live in an era of credibility at rock bottom, fuelled by governments that lie, companies that profit from illness and scientists whose funding is conditional. Some of this is true, but the danger arises when distrust becomes the definitive argument for dismissing evidence. In this way, legitimate uncertainty degenerates into conspiracy.

Science is not perfect. It is a human activity subject to errors and biases. However, that fallibility is precisely what makes it reliable: its ability to self-correct and adapt in the face of new evidence. Recognising its limits does not mean discrediting it.

Questioning a specific study is science; rejecting decades of consensus supported by thousands of researchers is ideology disguised as scepticism. Treating denialism as a “respectable opinion” means confusing tolerance with complicity. Denying reality is not expressing an alternative perspective: it puts lives at risk and weakens common knowledge.

Combating this phenomenon requires more than overwhelming people with data. Evidence rarely convinces a mind that sees itself as “an independent thinker who does not swallow everything”. It is important to act before fallacies take root: strengthening scientific education, fostering critical thinking and rebuilding institutional trust through transparency and accountability.