Denialism. What is "real" in public debates today? The case of evolution

The perception of what is “real” and “true” in science has always been disputed. We explore here the case of denialism about the evolutionary explanations of life and human nature. This refusal of a corroborated scientific consensus is based on deeply rooted psychological attitudes. There is a sharp clash between our intuitive teleology and the scientific and philosophical scandal of contingency. Slyly, denialistic pseudoscience misuses post-modernist epistemology. Its appeal in public debates produces inconveniently hardened reactions by some field scientists. This is an interesting case of ongoing critical relationships between science, philosophy and society around the themes of reality and methodology of democratic debate. Despite the disagreeable communicational asymmetries, any dissent in science is potentially useful, but only under shared and fair rules of behaviour. We propose that the democratic image of science as an evolution of research programmes (according to an updated falsificationism) could help dealing with such controversies.