
A history of FLICC: techniques of science denial - ericdanielski
https://crankyuncle.com/a-history-of-flicc-the-5-techniques-of-science-denial/
======
bsaul
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
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
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
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
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?

