Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



A case study of a short televised debate between a climate scientist and an advocate for climate skepticism provides the basis for developing a contemporary conception of sophistry. The sophist has a high degree of argumentative content knowledge – knowledge of a domain selected and structured in ways that are most germane for its use in making arguments. The sophist also makes the deliberate choice to argue for a disreputable view, one that goes against the views of the majority, or of the experts. Sophistry, drawing as it does on argumentative skill, is difficult to manage. The best approach is likely to refuse debate; but if debate is unavoidable, then the sophist must be met with equal skill. It will be hard to develop such skill, however, as long as the sophist’s view is thought to be disreputable.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bauman, Y.
    2018, September24. Taking fire from both sides [Blog post]. Retrieved fromstandupeconomist.com/taking-fire-from-both-sides/
  2. Boykoff, M.
    2007 Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area, 39(2), 470–481. 10.1111/j.1475‑4762.2007.00769.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M.
    2004 Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136. doi:  10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. C-SPAN
    C-SPAN 2009 U.N. Climate Change Opening Ceremony. Retrieved fromhttps://www.c-span.org/video/?290493-1/un-climate-change-opening-ceremony&start=2307
  5. Ceccarelli, L.
    2011 Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228. 10.1353/rap.2010.0222
    https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.2010.0222 [Google Scholar]
  6. Collins, H., & Evans, R.
    2002 The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296. 10.1177/0306312702032002003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002003 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fairclough, I.
    2019 Deontic power and institutional contexts: The impact of institutional design on deliberation and decision-making in the UK fracking debate. Journal of Argumentation in Context8(1), pp.136–171. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18014.fai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18014.fai [Google Scholar]
  8. Gagarin, M.
    2001 Did the sophists aim to persuade?Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 19(3), 275–291. doi:  10.1525/rh.2001.19.3.275
    https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2001.19.3.275 [Google Scholar]
  9. Glassman, M.
    2015 Stopping the spin cycle: ‘Merchants of Doubt’ debunks deceit. Documentary Magazine 2015(Winter).
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Goodnight, G. T.
    1982 The personal, technical and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 214–227.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Goodwin, J.
    2002 Designing issues. InF. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp.81–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9948‑1_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_7 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2005 Designing premises. InF. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Argumentation in practice (pp.99–114). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.2.09goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.09goo [Google Scholar]
  13. 2018 Effective because ethical: Speech act theory as a framework for scientists’ communication. InS. Priest, J. Goodwin, & M. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Ethics and practice in science communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goodwin, J., & Honeycutt, L.
    2009 When science goes public: From technical arguments to appeals to authority. Studies in Communication Sciences, 9(2), 19–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gore, D. C.
    2011 Sophists and sophistry in the Wealth of Nations. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 44(1), 1–26. doi:  10.1353/par.2011.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1353/par.2011.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hamblin, C. L.
    1993Fallacies. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hawhee, D.
    2002 Agonism and arete. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 35(3), 185–207. doi:  10.1353/par.2003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1353/par.2003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  18. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Retrieved fromwww.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr/. 10.1017/CBO9780511546013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546013 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jackson, S.
    1998 Disputation by design. Argumentation, 12, 183–198. 10.1023/A:1007743830491
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007743830491 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2015 Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 29(3), 243–263. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9353‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W.
    2003 The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. doi:  10.1111/1467‑8624.00605
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605 [Google Scholar]
  22. Leff, M.
    1986 Textual criticism: The legacy of G. P. Mohrmann. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72(4), 377–389. doi:  10.1080/00335638609383783
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638609383783 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M.
    2014 Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  24. Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D.
    2019 The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.65–90. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18017.lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18017.lew [Google Scholar]
  25. Liberman, K.
    2008 Sophistry in and as its course. Argumentation, 22(1), 59–70. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑007‑9070‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9070-y [Google Scholar]
  26. Maslin, M.
    2004Global warming: A very short introduction. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Miller, F. D.
    2013 Aristotle on belief and knowledge. InG. Anagnostopoulos & F. D. J. Miller (Eds.), (pp.285–307). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  28. Musi, E. & Aakhus, M.
    2019 Framing fracking: Semantic frames as meta-argumentative indicators for knowledge-driven argument mining of controversies. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.112–135. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18016.mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18016.mus [Google Scholar]
  29. Morano, M.
    2009 Climate Depot’s TV Debate in Copenhagen: UK Warming Prof. falsely claims ‘5000 leading climate scientists’ in UN IPCC – Morano Counters: ‘You need to apologize and retract that immediately’. Retrieved fromwww.climatedepot.com/2009/12/12/climate-depots-tv-debate-in-copenhagen-uk-warming-prof-falsely-claims-5000-leading-climate-scientists-in-un-ipcc-morano-counters-you-need-to-apologize-and-retract-that-immediately/
  30. Olivier, B.
    2007 Pseudo-communication and the return of the sophist: Thank you for smoking, at first sight. Communicatio, 33(2), 45–62. doi:  10.1080/02500160701685409
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02500160701685409 [Google Scholar]
  31. Olson, R.
    2010a #17) Interview with Marc Morano, Part I: “The Muhammad Ali of Global Warming ‘Debating’”. Retrieved fromthebenshi.com/?p=557
  32. 2010b #18) Interview with Marc Morano, Part II: Naming Names (Bill McKibben, Exxon Mobil, George Monbiot, Al Gore, John Kerry, Joe Romm, Dan Weiss, Robert Murtha, Mike Mann, Ed Begley, Jr., Andy Revkin, and Ralph Cicerone). Retrieved fromthebenshi.com/?p=608
  33. 2010c #19) Analysis: Why Marc Morano is such a good communicator. Retrieved fromthebenshi.com/?p=664
  34. Parsons, D.
    2017 Deconstructing a climate change skeptic: A podcast with Marc Morano. Retrieved fromamericaadapts.org/2017/08/07/deconstructing-a-climate-skeptic-the-marc-morano-podcast/
  35. Richardson, J. H.
    2010 This man wants to convince you global warming is a hoax. Esquire. Retrieved fromhttps://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a7078/marc-morano-0410/
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S.
    2010 Comparing the argumentum model of topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: The procedural and material components. Argumentation, 24(4), 489–512. 10.1007/s10503‑010‑9190‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-010-9190-7 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rodrigues, S., Lewiński, M., & Uzelgun, M. A.
    2019 Environmental manifestoes: Argumentative strategies in the Ecomodernist Manifesto. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.12–39. 10.1075/jaic.18036.rod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18036.rod [Google Scholar]
  38. Scott, E. C.
    2004 Confronting creationism. Reports of the National Council for Science Education, 24(6), 23.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Shulman, L. S.
    1986 Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4. doi:  10.2307/1175860
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860 [Google Scholar]
  40. 1987 Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. doi:  10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
    https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 [Google Scholar]
  41. Uzelgun, M. A., Lewiński, M., & Castro, P.
    2016 Favorite battlegrounds of climate action: Arguing about scientific consensus, representing science-society relations. Science Communication, 38(6) 699–723. doi:  10.1177/1075547016676602
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016676602 [Google Scholar]
  42. Van Laar, J. A.
    2010 Argumentative bluff in eristic discussion: An analysis and evaluation. Argumentation, 24(3), 383–398. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑010‑9184‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-010-9184-5 [Google Scholar]
  43. Van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W.
    2019 Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises: The 2015 Paris agreement in Dutch parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.91–111. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18009.laa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18009.laa [Google Scholar]
  44. Vonnegut, K.
    1961 Harrison Bergeron. Retrieved fromwww.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
  45. videoScribble
    videoScribble 2009, December12). DevelopingWorld Told to Make Sacrifices to Save the Planet [Video File]. Retrievedfromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgPJnvgCSb4
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Whedbee, K. E.
    2008 Making the worse case appear the better: British reception of the Greek sophists prior to 1850. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 11(4), 603–630. doi:  10.1353/rap.0.0069
    https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.0.0069 [Google Scholar]
  47. Zarefsky, D.
    2014 Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation Rhetorical perspectives on argumentation: Selected essays by David Zarefsky (pp.87–101): Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑05485‑8_8

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error