The Pandemic of Argumentation.
Saved in:
Superior document: | Argumentation Library ; v.43 |
---|---|
: | |
TeilnehmendeR: | |
Place / Publishing House: | Cham : : Springer International Publishing AG,, 2022. ©2022. |
Year of Publication: | 2022 |
Edition: | 1st ed. |
Language: | English |
Series: | Argumentation Library
|
Online Access: | |
Physical Description: | 1 online resource (367 pages) |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
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.