Abstract
The increasing relevance of invasion science in an era of profound biodiversity loss (Simberloff et al. 2013) has been accompanied by an increase in denialism that exploits uncertainty, ignores or misrepresents empirical evidence, alleges bias, and casts doubt on consensus (Russell & Blackburn 2017; Pauchard et al. 2018; Ricciardi & Ryan 2018a,b). Evidence-based scientific debate (i.e., informed skepticism) indicates a healthy discipline; however, repeating unsupported claims and disregarding decades of evidence negates knowledge progression, adversely affects public attitudes, and misleads policy makers.
Sagoff (2020) ignores a large empirical evidence base and dismisses consensus among invasion scientists by questioning: the credibility of high economic costs of invasive species; threats posed by invasive species other than predators; generality of native and nonnative distinctions; and, the utility of ontological dualism in distinguishing natural and anthropogenic processes.