Skip to Main Content

Misinformation, Disinformation, and Fake News

About

The FLICC technique was developed by Mark Hoffnage in 2007. It began as a way for students to identify disinformation and myths about climate change. Now, not only is it still being used to identify disinformation in the world of science but is used to help debunk other forms of disinformation. 

Source: Lewandowsky and Cook, 2020

The five branches of FLICC

The five branches of the FLICC taxonomy are:

F – Fake experts

When an actor is "presenting an unqualified person or institution as a source of credible information

L – Logic fallacies

A situation where the conclusion for an argument "doesn’t logically follow from the premises".

I – Impossible expectations

A situation wherein actors or individuals are "demanding unrealistic standards of certainty before acting on the science".

C – Cherry picking

The act of "choosing the most favourable data – and ignoring other data that runs counter to the desired result – in order to make a point" (Johnson & Gluck, 2016, p. 109).

C – Conspiracy theories

"Proposing that a secret plan exists to implement a nefarious scheme such as hiding the truth".

Source: Lewandowsky and Cook, 2020

Below is a three-part video series that helps explain these concepts further and how they help you become a better critical thinker: 

Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:

Examples of FLICC

Fake experts: An individual with certain accreditation, such as a Doctorate of Philosophy, presenting themselves as an expert on scientific matters, such as biological, physical, chemical, etc. (Cook et al., 2017)

Logical fallacies: Any changes to the climate are natural because changes have happened in the past

Impossible Expectations: Electric cars and solar panels won't work because of inclement and cloudy weather

Cherry picking: Global warming ended in the 1980s

Conspiracy Theories: Events or places such as Area 51, the U.S. government was responsible for 9/11 (Butter, 2014), or claiming that scientists or governments are purposefully misleading the public.