Journal of Argumentation in Context - Volume 12, Issue 3, 2023

Abstract

The fallacy approach to argument pedagogy has been criticized as being overtly critical, theoretically defective and encouraging an adversarial attitude. In order to solve some of those issues, the effects of fallacy teaching on the arguer’s behavior should be studied empirically. Here I present an exploratory study in which I take a look at how accusations of fallacies are made on Twitter. 865 accusations were analyzed according to seven criteria: (1) whether the fallacy is identified, (2) whether it is misidentified, (3) whether the accusation was substantiated, (4) whether the substantiation makes reference to the context, (5) whether the accuser relies on the “taxonomic technique”, (6) whether the accuser relies on a problematic theory, and (7) whether the accuser is willing to discuss the accusation. Both the findings of the study and the reliability of the criteria are discussed.

Abstract

Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories provide strong evidence that the argumentation theory advocated by Ottoman theorists was epistemologically oriented, and has strong parallels with the argumentation theory of kalām (dialectical theology); indeed Ottoman argumentation theory and kalām interacted intensively and influenced each other. This article traces some snapshots of this discourse. In doing so, key concepts of Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories are introduced.

Abstract

Controversial “gain-of-function” research (GoFR) aims to improve understanding of human health by studying behavior of genetically altered viruses in laboratory experiments. GoFR proponents tout its potential to support public health disease surveillance, drug development and vaccine innovation, while skeptics warn that unplanned laboratory release of genetically altered pathogens could harm millions in pandemics caused by science. Public interest in GoFR grew during the Covid-19 pandemic, as theories circulated that SARS-CoV-2 was the result of GoFR conducted at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. Analysis of a 2015 public debate on GoFR research, reconstructed according to pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, sheds light on the increasingly salient scientific controversy and contributes to the growing literature on argumentation and health.

This article reviews Authoritarianism on the front page: Multimodal discourse and argumentation in times of multiple crises in Greece

This article reviews Responding to questions at press conferences: Confrontational maneuvering by Chinese spokespersons