UC San Diego Science Project
UC San Diego
Science Media Literacy Resource Back to SML Resources →

The LIARS Strategy

A strategy for recognizing common deceptive tactics used to make unreliable science claims appear credible. Developed by Douglas Allchin as a tool for building science media literacy, LIARS helps students and teachers identify the tactics rather than evaluate every individual claim.

Grades 6-12 Source Credibility First Pass Evaluation

Allchin, D. (2022). Who speaks for science? Science & Education, 31(6), 1475-1492. · Allchin, D. (2024). Science L.I.A.R.S.: A game to combat misinformation. The Science Teacher, 91(1), 8-11. · Allchin, D. (2023). Ten competencies for the science misinformation crisis. Science Education, 107(2), 261-274.

Classroom materials

Play the Science LIARS Game

Practice identifying the LIARS dimensions with real science media artifacts. The game presents science claims and asks players to determine which ones are real and which are fabricated, while spotting deceptive strategies along the way.

LIARS Game Slide Deck Use template → Google Slides deck for playing the game with your class.

Why LIARS?

When we encounter a science claim on social media, in a news article, or in a video, our first instinct is often to evaluate the claim itself: Is this true? Is the evidence good? But for most of us, evaluating domain-specific scientific evidence requires expertise we may not have. The LIARS framework offers a different starting point: instead of trying to judge the science directly, look first at who is making the claim and how they are presenting it.

LIARS identifies five common deceptive tactics that unreliable sources use to appear credible. By learning to recognize these patterns, students develop a practical first-pass filter for science claims they encounter online and in media.

The LIARS strategy works alongside the Evaluating a Science Claim method. To learn about other deceptive tactics, see the FLICC Taxonomy Tool.

Looks Professional appearance and confident style

Polished

Unreliable sources often invest heavily in looking professional. Polished graphics, confident delivery, clean website design, and the visual trappings of authority can all create an impression of credibility that has nothing to do with the quality of the science. With modern tools, anyone can produce content that looks like it comes from a legitimate scientific organization.

Ask Does the professional appearance match the quality of the evidence?

Identity Appeal to social bonds as a substitute for epistemic trust

In-group

Some sources build trust not through evidence but through shared identity. They appeal to social bonds, community membership, political affiliation, or cultural values as a reason to believe a claim. Social cohesion can be a powerful factor in belief, and social media platforms exploit existing social networks to amplify the reach of unreliable science.

Ask Is trust being built through evidence, or through social belonging?

Acting False credentials or irrelevant expertise; disguise

Fake disguise

This dimension addresses sources that present false credentials, claim irrelevant expertise, or disguise their true identity or interests. A person may hold a real degree but speak outside their area of expertise. Organizations may use names that mimic legitimate scientific institutions. Conflicts of interest may be hidden behind a veneer of objectivity.

Ask Does this person have relevant expertise, and are they being transparent about who they are?

Repetition Flooding the media with the same erroneous message

Echo

Misinformation gains apparent legitimacy through repetition and familiarity. When the same erroneous message appears across multiple websites, YouTube channels, talk radio, and social media feeds, it creates an illusion of widespread agreement. Multiple sources may host variants of the same disinformation, making it seem like independent confirmation when it is coordinated amplification.

Ask Am I seeing independent sources, or the same message echoed across channels?

Skepticism Exaggerating and leveraging doubt for its own sake

Doubt

This strategy appeals to the philosophical principle of skepticism to turn scientific uncertainty into outright disbelief. The appeal appears pro-science ("We need more research!"), but it deliberately evokes fears of being wrong. Doubt becomes uncertainty, uncertainty becomes lack of proof, and lack of proof becomes error. This is a well-documented playbook for discounting established science, particularly around public health and environmental regulation.

Ask Is genuine scientific uncertainty being weaponized to prevent action on established science?
FLICC Taxonomy → The five techniques of science denial: Fake Experts, Logical Fallacies, Impossible Expectations, Cherry Picking, and Conspiracy Theories. Instructional Model → The three-station sequential model for integrating science media literacy throughout the school year. Science Media Artifacts Library → A searchable collection of real media artifacts mapped to LIARS and FLICC for classroom use.

References

  • LIARS Framework: Allchin, D. (2022). Who speaks for science? Science & Education, 31(6), 1475-1492.
  • The LIARS Strategy: Allchin, D. (2024). Science L.I.A.R.S.: A game to combat misinformation. The Science Teacher, 91(1), 8-11.
  • Ten Competencies: Allchin, D. (2023). Ten competencies for the science misinformation crisis. Science Education, 107(2), 261-274.