Phil Opitz sent me this article recently. I think it is a really interesting way of thinking about scientific debate. Sorting out “denialism” and scientific dialogue seems like a useful way of approaching all kinds of topics.
Lately I have been thinking about it as it relates to the interpreter certification system. There has been a lot of discussion between articles on Street Leverage, the RID, and elsewhere about the validity of the NIC. Some of it is denialism and some of it is actual scientific discourse, and I have found this distinction useful in trying to understand the entire issue.