Epidemiology of Fallacies

  1. Duarte, Antonio
Revue:
Argumentation

ISSN: 0920-427X,  1572-8374

Année de publication: 2024

Volumen: 38

Pages: 329-347

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1007/S10503-024-09634-Z GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

D'autres publications dans: Argumentation

Résumé

In this paper I apply the epidemiological model of the spread of beliefs and how they become cultural representations to the field of fallacies. The model suggests that beliefs tend to replicate as a virus does in a potential epidemic, and those strains that are dominant in a given socio-cultural sphere become cultural representations. My ultimate aim is to denounce the fact that some presumptive argumentation schemes are widely applied as definitive arguments, but turn out to be instances of common and traditional fallacies. Moreover, some such fallacies have managed to colonise the human mind and become cultural representations in society today. Adopting the approach I advocate here, we could say that the fallacy has become a belief, which has then managed to replicate like a virus, and finally the fallacy has become a cultural representation. One of the great harms that results from this process is that it is very difficult to open up effective lines of argument that expose the fallacious nature of these new and perverse cultural representations.

€ Voir financement

Information sur le financement

Financeurs

Références bibliographiques

  • Chow, Sheryl L., Biykem Bozkurt, William L. Baker, Barry E. Bleske, Khadijah Breathett, Gregg C. Fonarow, Barry Greenberg, Prateeti Khazanie, Jacinthe Leclerc, Alanna A. Morris, Barry Gr Nosheen. Reza, and Clyde W. Yancy. 2023. Complementary and Alternative Medicines in the Management of Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 147(2): E4–E30. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001110.
  • Cyranoski, David. 2018. The Big Push for Chinese Medicine. Nature 561: 448–450. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06782-7.
  • de Donato Rodríguez, Xavier, and Jesús Zamora Bonilla. 2014. Scientific Controversies and the Ethics of Arguing and Belief in the Face of Rational Disagreement. Argumentation 28: 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9300-4.
  • de Felipe, Íñigo Onay. 2021. The Universality of Science and Traditional Chinese Medicine. Science & Education 30: 1353–1370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00249-4.
  • Eigenschink, Michael, Lukas Dearing, Tom E. Dablander, Julian Maier, and Harald H. Sitte. 2020. A Critical Examination of the Main Premises of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 132: 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-020-01625-w.
  • Ernst, Edzard. 2006. Acupuncture: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Internal Medicine 259: 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01584.x.
  • Ernst, Edzard. 2015. A Scientist in Wonderland: A Memoir of Searching for Truth and Finding Trouble. Exeter: Imprint Academic.
  • Ernst, Edzard. 2020. Fallacies of Esoteric Medicine. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 132: 224–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-020-01637-6.
  • Fears, R., G.E. Griffin, D. Larhammar, V. ter Meulen, and J.W.M. van der Meer. 2020. Globalization of Traditional Chinese Medicine: What are the Issues for Ensuring Evidence-Based Diagnosis and Therapy? Journal of Internal Medicine 287: 210–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12989.
  • Goodwin, Jean. 2011. Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts. Argumentation 25: 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9219-6.
  • Goodwin, Jean, and Ekaterina Bogomoletc. 2022. Critical Questions About Scientific Research Publications in the Online Mask Debate. In The Pandemic of Argumentation: Argumentation Library, vol. 43, ed. S. Oswald, M. Lewiński, S. Greco, and S. Villata, 331–354. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4_17.
  • Hitchcock, David, and Jean H. M. Wagemans. 2011. The Pragma-Dialectical Account of Argument Schemes. In Keeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics, ed. B.J. Garssen and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 185–205. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Nature’s editorial. 2019. Break with Tradition. Nature 570: 5.
  • Nguyen, An., and Daniel Catalan-Matamoros. 2020. Digital Mis/Disinformation and Public Engagement with Health and Science Controversies: Fresh Perspectives from Covid-19. Media and Communication 8(2): 323–328. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.3352.
  • Polo, Claire, Christian Plantin, Kristine Lund, and Gerald Niccolai. 2017. Group Emotions in Collective Reasoning: A Model. Argumentation 31: 301–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9407-5.
  • Salazar, Carles. 2015. Introduction: Science, Religion and Forms of Life. In Religion and Science as Forms of Life: Anthropological Insights into Reason and Unreason, ed. C. Salazar and J. Bestard, 1–22. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781782384892-001.
  • Singh, Simon, and Edzard Ernst. 2008. Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. London: Bantam Press.
  • Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca., and Dima Mohammed. 2012. Institutional Constraints on Strategic Maneuvering in Shared Medical Decision-Making. Journal of Argumentation in Context 1(1): 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.03moh.
  • Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca and Jean H. M. Wagemans. 2015. Reasonableness in context: Taking into account institutional conventions in the pragma-dialectical evaluation of argumentative discourse. In B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), International Society for the Study of Argumentation: 8th International Conference on Argumentation: July 1-July 4, 2014, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pp. 1350–1359. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
  • Sperber, Dan. 2002. Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  • van Eemeren, Frans H. 2012. Maniobras estratégicas en el discurso argumentativo. Plaza y Valdés Editores: CSIC.
  • van Eemeren, Frans H. 2019. Argumentative Style: A Complex Notion. Argumentation 33: 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09478-y.
  • van Eemeren, Frans H. 2022. Characterising an MEP’s argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11(1): 6–26. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21020.eem.
  • van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Sara Greco, Ton van Haaften, Nanon Labrie, Fernando Leal, and Wu. Peng. 2022. A Pragma-Dialectical Study of Functional Variety in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.20.
  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2000. Rhetorical Analysis within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework. Argumentation 14: 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007857114100.
  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2007. The Contextuality of Fallacies. Informal Logic 27(1): 59–67. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v27i1.464.
  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in Argumentative DISCUSSIONS. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1987. Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 1: 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136779.
  • Wagemans, Jean H. M. 2011. The Assessment of Argumentation from Expert Opinion. Argumentation 25: 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9225-8.
  • Wagemans, Jean H. M. 2020. Institutionalized argumentative reasonableness: Commentary on Menno Reijven’s “Institutional and Institutionalized Fallacies: Diversifying Pragma-Dialectical Fallacy Judgments”. In J. Cook (Ed.), OSSA 12: Evidence, Persuasion & Diversity (Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference; Vol. 12). OSSA. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA12/Wednesday/37/.
  • Walton, Douglas N. 1995. A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
  • Walton, Douglas N. 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  • Walton, Douglas N. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Walton, Douglas N. 2008. Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Walton, Douglas N., Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034.
  • World Health Organization. 2013. WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy: 2014–2023. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506096. Accessed 31 October 2023.
  • World Health Organization. 2019. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int/. Accessed 31 October 2023.