Techniques of Science Denial, the FLICC Taxonomy Explained

Key points from the graphic

The graphic sets out the FLICC taxonomy: Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking and Conspiracy theories.
It breaks the five techniques into 25 more specific ones, shown as icons on a branching tree.
Logical fallacies is the largest branch with 11 entries, including ad hominem, straw man, red herring and slippery slope.
Conspiracy theories are described by seven traits, such as being immune to evidence and assuming nefarious intent.
The framework was devised by cognitive scientist John Cook, building on five denial tactics described from 2007 onward [1].

Techniques of science denial, the graphic in text

Title: “Techniques of Science Denial”. Five large letters, F L I C C, head five coloured branches, each with an icon for every technique. The graphic gives names and icons only; the definitions in the third column are John Cook’s, from the Skeptical Science table that accompanies the taxonomy [1].

Letter	Technique on the graphic	Definition (John Cook, Skeptical Science)
F	Fake Experts	Presenting an unqualified person or institution as a source of credible information.
	Bulk Fake Experts	Citing large numbers of seeming experts to argue that there is no scientific consensus on a topic.
	Magnified Minority	Magnifying the significance of a handful of dissenting scientists to cast doubt on an overwhelming scientific consensus.
	Fake Debate	Presenting science and pseudoscience in an adversarial format to give the false impression of an ongoing scientific debate.
L	Logical Fallacies	Arguments where the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premises.
	Ad Hominem	Attacking a person or group instead of addressing their arguments.
	Misrepresentation	Misrepresenting a situation or an opponent’s position in such a way as to distort understanding.
	Straw Man (under Misrepresentation)	Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack.
	Ambiguity	Using ambiguous language in order to lead to a misleading conclusion.
	Oversimplification	Simplifying a situation in such a way as to distort understanding, leading to erroneous conclusions.
	False Choice (under Oversimplification)	Presenting two options as the only possibilities, when other possibilities exist.
	Single Cause (under Oversimplification)	Assuming a single cause or reason when there might be multiple causes or reasons.
	False Analogy	Assuming that because two things are alike in some ways, they are alike in some other respect.
	Red Herring	Deliberately diverting attention to an irrelevant point to distract from a more important point.
	Blowfish (under Red Herring)	Focusing on an inconsequential aspect of scientific research, blowing it out of proportion in order to distract from or cast doubt on the main conclusions of the research.
	Slippery Slope	Suggesting that taking a minor action will inevitably lead to major consequences.
I	Impossible Expectations	Demanding unrealistic standards of certainty before acting on the science.
	Moving Goalposts	Demanding higher levels of evidence after receiving requested evidence.
C	Cherry Picking	Carefully selecting data that appear to confirm one position while ignoring other data that contradicts that position.
	Anecdote	Using personal experience or isolated examples instead of sound arguments or compelling evidence.
	Slothful Induction	Ignoring relevant evidence when coming to a conclusion.
	Quote Mining	Taking a person’s words out of context in order to misrepresent their position.
C	Conspiracy Theories	Proposing that a secret plan exists to implement a nefarious scheme such as hiding a truth.
	Contradictory	Simultaneously believing in ideas that are mutually contradictory.
	Overriding suspicion	Having a nihilistic degree of skepticism towards the official account, preventing belief in anything that doesn’t fit into the conspiracy theory.
	Nefarious Intent	Assuming that the motivations behind any presumed conspiracy are nefarious.
	Something Must Be Wrong	Maintaining that “something must be wrong” and the official account is based on deception, even when specific parts of a conspiracy theory become untenable.
	Persecuted Victim	Perceiving and presenting themselves as the victim of organized persecution.
	Immune to Evidence	Re-interpreting any evidence that counters a conspiracy theory as originating from the conspiracy.
	Re-interpreting Randomness	Believing that nothing occurs by accident, so that random events are re-interpreted as being caused by the conspiracy.

The graphic shows no examples, logo or web address.

Where FLICC comes from

John Cook traces the idea to 2007, when Mark Hoofnagle suggested that people denying science on topics such as climate change, evolution and HIV/AIDS all used the same five tactics: conspiracy, selectivity (cherry picking), fake experts, impossible expectations and general fallacies of logic [1]. In 2009 Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee developed those tactics in the European Journal of Public Health and argued that they should be exposed to public scrutiny [1][2].

Cook turned the five into the acronym FLICC while preparing a 2013 workshop for the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. It then became the framework of Denial101x, a free online course run in 2015 by the University of Queensland and Skeptical Science. He later added reasoning fallacies from work with critical thinking philosophers, and seven traits of conspiratorial thinking from The Conspiracy Theory Handbook, written with Stephan Lewandowsky [1].

Notes on this infographic

Earlier version. Skeptical Science now shows a larger version of the taxonomy that adds techniques such as false equivalence, false balance, lowered expectations, anchoring and wishful thinking [1]. This graphic is the earlier, smaller tree.
Single Cause. In Cook’s table the example given for single cause is the same as the one for logical fallacies in general [1]; the definitions themselves differ.
Climate examples. Cook’s examples for each technique are mostly about climate change [1]. The graphic has no examples and is not tied to one topic.

Questions about science denial techniques

What are the 5 characteristics of science denial?

In the FLICC framework they are fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking and conspiracy theories [1]. These are the five large letters at the top of the graphic.

What is the Blowfish fallacy?

Blowfish sits under red herring on the graphic. John Cook defines it as focusing on an inconsequential aspect of scientific research, blowing it out of proportion in order to distract from or cast doubt on the main conclusions of the research [1].

Who created the FLICC framework of science denial?

Cognitive scientist John Cook turned five denial tactics into the acronym FLICC while preparing a 2013 workshop for the Australian Youth Climate Coalition [1]. The tactics were first suggested by Mark Hoofnagle in 2007, and Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee developed them in the European Journal of Public Health in 2009 [1][2]. FLICC then became the framework of Denial101x, a free online course run in 2015 [1].

What are the traits of conspiracy theories in science denial?

The FLICC graphic lists seven traits of conspiracy theories: contradictory, overriding suspicion, nefarious intent, something must be wrong, persecuted victim, immune to evidence and re-interpreting randomness. John Cook defines immune to evidence as re-interpreting any evidence that counters a conspiracy theory as originating from the conspiracy [1]. The traits come from The Conspiracy Theory Handbook, written by Cook with Stephan Lewandowsky [1].