3 ms·

A history of FLICC: techniques of science denial

bsaul 6y ago
Another acronym that's probably going to be used to label people instead of honestly trying to discuss potential problems in theories, observations and models. I don't think we should give the general public even more tools to simplify problems and conversations. Modern science is exploring very complex and chaotic problems, involving a huge number of various phenomenons interacting with each other and try to build a correct view of the result. Sometimes, "Cherry picking" is exactly what we need to show a problem in a theory. Other times, there are structural problems for why a disproved theory keeps being taken into account (such as funding, or other potential conflict of interests), and it's not being a conspirationnist to talk about them. All what matters in the end, is whether the person raising an issue is somewhat qualified enough to give an interesting perspective, and if that person is honest.
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  They probably thought it smart to use the same acronym pattern as SLAPP to give their concept a boost in public perception, not realising that the idea behind SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, a method to silence critics - can be applied against the very concept they're trying to push: label and disavow those who go against the current orthodoxy.
  - lidHanteyk 6y ago
    Your fallacies are "Fake Analogy", "Misrepresentation", and "Persecuted Victim"; you saw two five-letter acronyms and decided that they must be related, and moreover that the relation is that critics must be silenced.
    - Yetanfou 6y ago
      If I may respond in the same way, but simpler: your (and I normally don't use these personal labels on this site but here it is necessary) mistake is that you try to respond to a concept by attaching labels to either the response or the responder. This kills any chance of having a sensible debate and there is no doubt it is very effective if that is the intended effect. It is a net negative in all other senses. So, apart from applying labels to my response - and with that showing proof of the original premise I was trying to make - do you have a more constructive response? What, in your opinion, is the good done by attaching negative labels to concepts or persons? Can this be used in constructive ways or is it, as I propose, just a way to silence critics? As far as I can see it only serves to polarise the discussion and will cause people to throw up (virtual) barricades from behind which they can throw epithets at each other. My position is that there is far too much of this labelling and epithet-throwing and far too little sensible discussion where people of differing opinions get to meet each other to try to defend their positions in the open, without those barricades. Anything which will lead to more polarisation is in my opinion a net negative and as such something to try to keep out of the discourse.
      - lidHanteyk 6y ago
        Hi, to be blunt: You read the mind of the original article author: > They probably thought it smart to use the same acronym pattern as SLAPP Nope. Read the original article: FLICC comes from over a decade of research into the taxonomy of science denial. The author explicitly says that, in 2013, they coined FLICC as an attempt to categorize and simplify their presentation. I don't see why I should be "constructive" or engage in "sensible debate" with you. Your approach isn't "simpler". I am not allowed to say that you did not read the original article, but I do think that you skimmed and did not engage with the bulk of its content or conclusions. Do you have a position, other than the mind-reading dismissal that you started with?
- lidHanteyk 6y ago
  Your fallacy is "Fake Debate"; you are giving science deniers extra room to justify their beliefs by insinuating that scientists do not already discuss potential problems in their theories.

Another acronym that's probably going to be used to label people instead of honestly trying to discuss potential problems in theories, observations and models. I don't think we should give the general public even more tools to simplify problems and conversations. Modern science is exploring very complex and chaotic problems, involving a huge number of various phenomenons interacting with each other and try to build a correct view of the result. Sometimes, "Cherry picking" is exactly what we need to show a problem in a theory. Other times, there are structural problems for why a disproved theory keeps being taken into account (such as funding, or other potential conflict of interests), and it's not being a conspirationnist to talk about them. All what matters in the end, is whether the person raising an issue is somewhat qualified enough to give an interesting perspective, and if that person is honest.

Yetanfou 6y ago
They probably thought it smart to use the same acronym pattern as SLAPP to give their concept a boost in public perception, not realising that the idea behind SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, a method to silence critics - can be applied against the very concept they're trying to push: label and disavow those who go against the current orthodoxy.
- lidHanteyk 6y ago
  Your fallacies are "Fake Analogy", "Misrepresentation", and "Persecuted Victim"; you saw two five-letter acronyms and decided that they must be related, and moreover that the relation is that critics must be silenced.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    If I may respond in the same way, but simpler: your (and I normally don't use these personal labels on this site but here it is necessary) mistake is that you try to respond to a concept by attaching labels to either the response or the responder. This kills any chance of having a sensible debate and there is no doubt it is very effective if that is the intended effect. It is a net negative in all other senses. So, apart from applying labels to my response - and with that showing proof of the original premise I was trying to make - do you have a more constructive response? What, in your opinion, is the good done by attaching negative labels to concepts or persons? Can this be used in constructive ways or is it, as I propose, just a way to silence critics? As far as I can see it only serves to polarise the discussion and will cause people to throw up (virtual) barricades from behind which they can throw epithets at each other. My position is that there is far too much of this labelling and epithet-throwing and far too little sensible discussion where people of differing opinions get to meet each other to try to defend their positions in the open, without those barricades. Anything which will lead to more polarisation is in my opinion a net negative and as such something to try to keep out of the discourse.
    - lidHanteyk 6y ago
      Hi, to be blunt: You read the mind of the original article author: > They probably thought it smart to use the same acronym pattern as SLAPP Nope. Read the original article: FLICC comes from over a decade of research into the taxonomy of science denial. The author explicitly says that, in 2013, they coined FLICC as an attempt to categorize and simplify their presentation. I don't see why I should be "constructive" or engage in "sensible debate" with you. Your approach isn't "simpler". I am not allowed to say that you did not read the original article, but I do think that you skimmed and did not engage with the bulk of its content or conclusions. Do you have a position, other than the mind-reading dismissal that you started with?
lidHanteyk 6y ago
Your fallacy is "Fake Debate"; you are giving science deniers extra room to justify their beliefs by insinuating that scientists do not already discuss potential problems in their theories.