Ever find yourself in a heated argument about climate change, vaccines, or whether the moon landing was 鈥渏ust Hollywood propaganda鈥�? Suddenly, you鈥檙e not debating facts, you鈥檙e dodging YouTube links and rants about shadow governments. If you鈥檝e ever wondered how a conversation spiraled into chaos, the FLICC framework might help you make sense of it.
FLICC is a deceptively cute acronym for a seriously helpful tool: Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, and Conspiracy theories. First coined by climate communication researcher , the helps us identify the rhetorical smoke and mirrors often used to deny scientific consensus.
Let鈥檚 break it down.
F is for Fake Experts
Just because someone has 鈥淒r.鈥� in front of their name doesn鈥檛 mean they know what they鈥檙e talking about, especially if their doctorate is in dentistry and they鈥檙e suddenly a vaccine expert. The tobacco industry basically invented this move in the 鈥�70s, . A fake expert doesn鈥檛 just get things wrong, they鈥檙e used to create the illusion of debate where none exists.
L is for Logical Fallacies
Some arguments take wild leaps, . That鈥檚 a logical fallacy in action. Specifically, guilt by association. These argumentative traps twist logic to distract or mislead. Think strawman arguments (misrepresenting someone鈥檚 point to make it easier to attack), red herrings (changing the subject entirely), or false dichotomies (you鈥檙e either with us or against us). Once you spot them, you can鈥檛 unsee them.
I is for Impossible Expectations
This tactic asks science to do the impossible, like demanding 100% certainty before taking action. Climate skeptics love this one: 鈥淚f we don鈥檛 have precise temperature data from 10,000 years ago, how can we know global warming is real?鈥� It鈥檚 like saying dinosaurs never existed because you鈥檝e never personally dug up a fossil. Science is always evolving and rarely perfect. That doesn鈥檛 make it useless.
C is for Cherry Picking
This one鈥檚 the buffet-style approach to data: take the one study that supports your claim and ignore the 99 that don鈥檛. continues to fuel anti-vax rhetoric decades later. Denialists aren鈥檛 fazed by being in the extreme minority鈥攖hey wear it like a badge of honor, casting themselves as mavericks 鈥渂ravely鈥� opposing the status quo. Galileo would be thrilled.
C is for Conspiracy Theories
When all else fails, blame the shadowy cabal. Conspiracy theories argue that the scientific consensus is a coordinated cover-up, not the result of independent inquiry. Peer review? Just a censorship tool. COVID data? Fabricated by Big Pharma. This isn鈥檛 just paranoid, it鈥檚 self-sealing logic that immunizes itself from evidence. If you disagree, you鈥檙e part of the conspiracy.
So why does any of this matter? Because denialism isn鈥檛 just the basis of a frustrating argument, it鈥檚 dangerous. . . If you're interested in a deeper exploration of how these strategies are used to distort public discourse and delay action, I highly recommend the article "", a that piece served as a key inspiration for this essay and offers invaluable insight into how denialist arguments operate across different issues, from public health to environmental policy.
The beauty of FLICC is that it doesn鈥檛 just help you win arguments (though it definitely can). It gives you a way to name what鈥檚 happening, to pull back the curtain on misinformation and see the machinery at work. When you understand the playbook, you're harder to fool鈥攁nd more able to help others see clearly too.
Sophie Tseng Pellar recently graduated from 涩里番 with a Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree in the physiology program. She will be continuing her graduate studies in the surgical and interventional sciences program at 涩里番. Her research interests include exercise physiology, biomechanics and sports nutrition.
Part of the OSS mandate is to foster science communication and critical thinking in our students and the public. We hope you enjoy these pieces from our聽Student Contributors聽and welcome any feedback you may have!
