Table of Contents: The Pandemic of Argumentation.

The Pandemic of Argumentation.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Superior document:	Argumentation Library ; v.43
:	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
Online Access:	https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/oeawat/detail.action?docID=6897051
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.

The Pandemic of Argumentation.

Similar Items