The Pandemic of Argumentation (Argumentation Library, 43)

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