In the ‘Twilight Zone’: Challenges to Science Between Outright Denialism and Healthy Critique

We build on the phenomenological sociology of knowledge and argumentation theory to distinguish different rhetorical strategies mobilized by science sceptics based on the structure of their underlying arguments and the form of denial that they espouse. In more detail, we discuss three typical challenges to scientific knowledge: ‘real’ vs. ‘wrong/fake’ science (challenges to the cogency of data and warrants), ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’ scientists (challenges towards speaker credibility and authenticity), and ‘democratic’ vs. ‘expert’ science (challenges towards the appropriateness of science as a sphere of knowledge). Across these strategies, arguments often rely on elements of standard scientific critique; they don the insignia of science and appropriate ostensibly legitimate discourse positions, which makes it difficult to establish whether critique is made in good or bad faith. We conclude the chapter by briefly reflecting on ways of responding to the different rhetorical strategies and their underlying challenges to scientific knowledge.