This paper explores the kind of knowledge that partisans profess in order to contribute to our studies of what has usually been thought of as the “denial of science.” Building on the research of Robert Proctor, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, I show that the tobacco interests and climate science skeptics usually described as “doubt mongers” also purveyed forms of certainty and rested their arguments on three different registers of truth: that of narrowly defined “facts” that could sustain a controversy, ideological commitments to free enterprise, and the truths of self‐conscious partisans engaged in battle. Thus, in many respects they have used elements of general knowledge, as well as social, economic and political commitments, to argue against specific scientific findings. Further, at least in the case of climate skeptics, this denial has been in the service of an image of the nature of science and its proper relation to politics. Analyzing significant dichotomies in debates that cross the terrains of science and politics, and knowledge and science, I will argue that a clear articulation of the relations amongst them will be critical to our work to understand the character of climate science denial, but also of the climate sciences themselves.

中文翻译：

---

党派和知识与科学的使用

本文探讨了游击队所宣称的知识类型，以便为我们对通常被认为是“否认科学”的研究做出贡献。在罗伯特·普罗克特、娜奥米·奥雷斯克斯和埃里克·康威的研究的基础上，我表明通常被描述为“怀疑贩子”的烟草利益和气候科学怀疑论者也提供了确定性的形式，并将他们的论点建立在三个不同的真实记录上：狭隘的定义了可以维持争议的“事实”，对自由企业的意识形态承诺，以及参与战斗的自觉党派的真相。因此，在许多方面，他们使用了常识的要素以及社会、经济和政治承诺来反对特定的科学发现。此外，至少在气候怀疑论者的情况下，这种否认是为了塑造科学的本质及其与政治的适当关系。分析跨越科学与政治、知识与科学领域的辩论中的重要二分法，我认为，明确阐明它们之间的关系对于我们理解气候科学否认的特征以及气候科学否认的特征至关重要。气候科学本身。