The Pandemic of Argumentation.

• Superior document: Argumentation Library ; v.43
• Author: Oswald, Steve.
• TeilnehmendeR: Lewiński, Marcin.; Greco, Sara.; Villata, Serena.
• Place / Publishing House: Cham : : Springer International Publishing AG,, 2022.; ©2022.
• Year of Publication: 2022
• Edition: 1st ed.
• Language: English
• Series: Argumentation Library
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (367 pages)

Table of Contents

Intro -- Contents -- 1 Introduction: The Pandemic of Argumentation -- References -- Part I Arguing About the Pandemic -- 2 Arguing About "COVID": Metalinguistic Arguments on What Counts as a "COVID-19 Death" -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Metalinguistic interventions -- 2.3 Arguing Over What a COVID-19 Death Is -- 2.3.1 The Early Confusion -- 2.3.2 Solution 1: WHO's Broad Concept -- 2.3.3 Solution 2: Belgium's Broad Concept -- 2.3.4 Solution 3: UK's Narrow Concept: ONS Versus GOV.UK -- 2.3.5 Solution 4: Excess Deaths -- 2.4 Discussion -- 2.4.1 Between Scientific and Institutional Concepts -- 2.4.2 Metalinguistic Interventions as Practical Arguments -- References -- 3 Good and Ought in Argumentation: COVID-19 as a Case Study -- 3.1 Introduction: Evaluative and Deontic Propositions -- 3.1.1 Similarities and Differences Between Deontic and Evaluative Language and Concepts -- 3.1.2 The Inferential Connection Between 'Good' and 'Ought' -- 3.1.3 Assessing the Hypotheses Empirically -- 3.2 An Experimental Study of 'Good' and 'Ought' in Argumentation -- 3.2.1 Participants -- 3.2.2 Design and Materials -- 3.2.3 Control Truth-Value Judgment Task -- 3.2.4 Procedure -- 3.3 Results -- 3.4 Discussion -- 3.4.1 A Difference in the Context-Sensitivity of 'Good' and 'Ought' -- 3.4.2 The Prescriptive Character of Deontic 'Ought' -- 3.5 Conclusion and Prospects for Future Research -- References -- 4 How to Handle Reasonable Scientific Disagreement: The Case of COVID-19 -- 4.1 Introduction: The Infodemic of COVID-19 -- 4.2 Managing the COVID-19 Infodemic -- 4.3 The Debate Over COVID-19 Forecasting: Ioannidis Versus Taleb -- 4.3.1 Background -- 4.3.2 The Debate -- 4.3.3 Argumentation Schemes and Fallacies -- 4.4 Reasonable Scientific Disagreement -- 4.5 Mis/disinformation-Propagation and the Need for Transparency -- 4.6 Conclusion -- References.

5 Expert Uncertainty: Arguments Bolstering the Ethos of Expertise in Situations of Uncertainty -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 Uncertainty, Argumentation, and Ethos of Expertise -- 5.3 Empirical Material and Method -- 5.4 Rhetorically Introducing and Delimiting Uncertainty -- 5.4.1 Rhetorically Introducing Uncertainty -- 5.4.2 Rhetorical Strategies for Qualifying Uncertainty -- 5.5 Uncertainty as an Argument for Action - and for Ethos Building -- 5.6 Conclusion -- References -- 6 On Arguments from Ignorance in Policy-Making -- 6.1 Introduction -- 6.2 Arguments from Ignorance in Policy-Making: A Forced Marriage -- 6.3 Form and Contexts of Arguments from Ignorance -- 6.3.1 Form of Arguments from Ignorance -- 6.3.2 Fallacious Versus Reasonable Arguments from Ignorance -- 6.4 Real-Life Examples of Arguments from Ignorance in Policy-Making -- 6.4.1 Case 1 -- 6.4.2 Case 2 -- 6.5 Conclusion -- References -- 7 The Argumentative Potential of Doubt: From Legitimate Concerns to Conspiracy Theories About COVID-19 Vaccines -- 7.1 Introduction -- 7.2 Conspiracy Theories and the Argumentative Potential of Doubt -- 7.3 COVID-19 Vaccine: The Conspiracy Theory -- 7.4 Handling the Argumentative Potential: Doubt About the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccine -- 7.5 Discussion -- References -- 8 Pandemic Communication Without Argumentative Strategy in the Digital Age: A Cautionary Tale and a Call to Arms -- 8.1 Introduction: A Tale of Many Waves -- 8.2 Of Herd Immunity and Rotten Carrots: The Argumentative Debacle of Vaccine Communication in the EU -- 8.3 Conclusions: How to Save the World with Arguments -- References -- Part II Justifying and Promoting Health Policies -- 9 Rhetoric and Argumentation in the Pandemic Legislation: The Italian Case -- 9.1 Introduction -- 9.2 The Need for Justification -- 9.3 Changes in Law: Images, Sporadic Sanctions, and Experts.

9.4 Image Rhetoric in the Management of the COVID-19 Emergency -- 9.5 Showing Is Not Saying -- 9.6 The Nature of Images -- 9.7 Italian Pandemic Legislation and Its Soft-Enforcement -- 9.8 Argumentative Strengthening of Pandemic Legislation -- 9.9 The Role Played by the Experts and Their Rhetorical-Argumentative Accountability -- 9.10 Conclusions -- References -- 10 The Case of Coronavirus Contact-Tracing Apps: Arguments for Trust -- 10.1 Introduction -- 10.2 The Case of 'Immuni' Contact-Tracing App -- 10.3 Social Dilemmas -- 10.4 Trust in the App! A Selection of Pro-arguments -- 10.5 An Argumentative Analysis -- 10.6 Trust in Legal Relationships -- 10.7 Final Remarks -- References -- 11 Securitization, Emergency and the Rediscovery of Responsibility in Times of Pandemic: Analyzing Political Discourses from the European South -- 11.1 Introduction -- 11.2 Securitization and the Discursive Construction of the Enemy in Times of Crisis -- 11.3 Argumentative Polylogues and Standing Standpoint in Times of Pandemic -- 11.4 Scrutinizing Argumentative Polylogues: A DHA-AMT Micro-level Synthesis -- 11.5 Data Analysis and Discussion -- 11.6 Conclusion -- References -- 12 The UK Government's "Balancing Act" in the Pandemic: Rational Decision-Making from an Argumentative Perspective -- 12.1 Introduction -- 12.2 The United Kingdom: Worst Death Toll and Worst Recession in Europe -- 12.3 Practical Reasoning, Deliberation and Decision-Making -- 12.4 Getting the Balance Right or Wrong: A View from The Guardian -- 12.5 Getting the Balance Right or Wrong: the Daily Mail View -- 12.6 Getting the Balance Right or Wrong: The Daily Telegraph View -- 12.7 Getting the Balance Right or Wrong: A View from The Times -- 12.8 Pro/Con Argumentation: What Reasons Are Weighed Together in Arriving at a Conclusion "On Balance"? -- 12.9 Conclusion -- References.

13 Justification of Decision-Making in Response to COVID-19 Socio-Scientific Dilemmas -- 13.1 Introduction -- 13.2 Theoretical Framework -- 13.2.1 Decision Making in the Context of SSIs -- 13.2.2 The Importance of Argumentation Skills in Engagement with SSIs -- 13.3 Methodology -- 13.3.1 Context of Study -- 13.3.2 Research Tool -- 13.3.3 Sample -- 13.3.4 Data Analysis -- 13.3.5 Statistical Analysis -- 13.3.6 Methodological Limitations -- 13.4 Findings -- 13.4.1 RQ1. Which Justifications Do People Use to Explain Their Stance on COVID-19 Related Dilemmas? -- 13.4.2 RQ2. What is the Connection Between Demographic Characteristics, Scientific Knowledge and Education and Decision Making (Stance and Justification)? -- 13.5 Discussion -- References -- Part III Improving and Promoting Argumentative Literacy -- 14 Inoculating Students Again Conspiracy Theories: The Case of Covid-19 -- 14.1 Introduction -- 14.2 The Nature and Influence of Conspiracy Theories -- 14.3 The Attraction of Conspiracy Theories -- 14.3.1 Social Factors -- 14.3.2 Psychological Factors -- 14.3.3 Epistemic Factors -- 14.4 The Role of Critical Thinking Education -- 14.4.1 Addressing Epistemic Issues -- 14.4.2 Addressing Social and Psychological Issues -- 14.5 Conclusion -- References -- 15 Combatting Conspiratorial Thinking with Controlled Argumentation Dialogue Environments -- 15.1 Introduction -- 15.2 Known COVID-19 Conspiracies -- 15.3 Features of Conspiracy Belief -- 15.4 Warrant Game -- 15.5 Warrant Game for Analogies -- 15.6 Examples -- 15.7 Conclusion -- References -- 16 Staying Up to Date with Fact and Reason Checking: An Argumentative Analysis of Outdated News -- 16.1 Introduction -- 16.2 Related Work -- 16.2.1 Argumentation and Fake News -- 16.2.2 From Fact-Checking to Reason Checking -- 16.3 Theoretical Framework: Upstream and Downstream Issues and Arguments.

16.3.1 Applying the Framework to the Analysis of Outdated News: An Example -- 16.3.2 Applying the Framework to the Analysis of Miscaptioned News: An Example -- 16.4 Case Study -- 16.4.1 Corpus and Levels of Analysis -- 16.4.2 Results: A Taxonomy of Outdated News -- 16.5 Conclusions -- References -- 17 Critical Questions About Scientific Research Publications in the Online Mask Debate -- 17.1 Introduction -- 17.2 Adequacy -- 17.2.1 Assessment: Authoritative or Epistemic? -- 17.2.2 Authoritativeness -- 17.2.3 Epistemic Quality -- 17.3 Relevance -- 17.4 Sufficiency -- 17.5 Discussion and Conclusion -- References -- 18 On the Conditional Acceptance of Arguments from Expert Opinion -- 18.1 Introduction -- 18.2 The Relevance of Experts for people's Beliefs -- 18.3 Conditional Acceptance: Norms for Reasonable Argumentation -- 18.3.1 Norms for Evaluating Appeals to Expert Opinion -- 18.3.2 Persuasion Studies on Persuasive Experts -- 18.3.3 Argumentation Studies on Persuasive Experts -- 18.4 Conditional Acceptance: Prior Beliefs -- 18.4.1 Motivated Reasoning and Evaluation of Arguments -- 18.4.2 Evaluation of Expert Opinions -- 18.5 The Role of Experts in the COVID-19 Pandemic -- References -- Correction to: Inoculating Students Against Conspiracy Theories: The Case of Covid-19 -- Correction to: Chapter 14 in: S. Oswald et al. (eds.), The Pandemic of Argumentation, Argumentation Library 43, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91017-414.