deniers <of something of which> there's no solid proof

VicNicSor

Banned
Russian
There'll always be deniers of something of which there's no solid proof.
(self-made)

Would the boldfaced part work for you? It may sound unusual, because I think "denier" is usually used attributively before the noun, and because you don't use two prepositions for the same noun like that, but still, as a matter of style?
Thanks.

typo corrected
 
Last edited:
  • heypresto

    Senior Member
    English - England
    I think I'd say 'There will (or there'll) always be deniers of things for which there's no solid proof.'

    This sounds more natural to me, and neatly avoids the repetition of 'of'. :)
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Oh, it was a typo, it's "will":)

    But it's usually "proof of", not "proof for", no? And what's wrong with the repetition of of?...
     

    Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    My reaction was the same as heypresto's. It's something to do with the "of something of which": my brain starts to turn somersaults.

    There would be no equivalent problem with There will always be deniers of something there's no proof of.
     

    velisarius

    Senior Member
    British English (Sussex)
    I think "denier" is usually used attributively before the noun
    Sorry, but I don't get what you mean.


    I agree that "something for which there is no proof" is infinitely better.

    I think this sentence might pass scrutiny though:

    He was a supporter of obscure causes of which most people weren't even aware. Since there's an alternative construction available, (that most people weren't even aware of), I would prefer that.
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    Warning: in recent decades (in AE) "deniers" is used as a perjorative term. That started with "holocaust deniers" -- a few people who claim that those horrible events never happened. More recently it has been applied to other groups. It is used as part of political debate, in which one side wants to silence disagreement. For example, some scientists have been labelled (perjorative verb) "global warming deniers" as a way to damage their scientific careers. The word is used as a social weapon, not as a neutral term (in AE).

    A more neutral term is "people who disagree".
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    Warning: in recent decades (in AE) "deniers" is used as a perjorative term. That started with "holocaust deniers" -- a few people who claim that those horrible events never happened. More recently it has been applied to other groups. It is used as part of political debate, in which one side wants to silence disagreement. For example, some scientists have been labelled (perjorative verb) "global warming deniers" as a way to damage their scientific careers. The word is used as a social weapon, not as a neutral term (in AE).

    A more neutral term is "people who disagree".
    The term is indeed used to label people who deny the existence of something in the face of large/overwhelming amounts of evidence that what the "deny" is in fact true. Flat-earth people, anti-vaxxers, holocaust deniers and those denying the influence of man in climate change are all good examples.
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    in the face of large/overwhelming amounts of evidence
    Yes, that is the meaning of "deniers". But sometimes "overwheming evidence" is a false political claim. Scientists learn many things: that is data, not "evidence" to "prove that one viewpoint is right". For example, scientists state that CO2 has a warming effect in polar (very cold, below freezing) air, but zero effect in warmer air. So we have "polar warming" in science, but "global warming" in politics.

    History shows that all scientific breakthroughs come from a scientist who disagrees with the "commonly accepted view". Disagreement is an absolutely essential part of science.

    I agree with JS: there are many unrealistic "deniers". I agree with Vic: politics may distort the word's use.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top