Good and Bad Reasoning about COVID-19

IF 1 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2020-12-18 DOI:10.22329/il.v40i4.6310

L. Cummings

引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic presents argumentation theorists with an opportunity to reflect on the ways in which people, agencies and governments respond to the emergence of a new virus. Reponses have revealed a range of judgements and decisions, not all of which are rationally warranted. This article will examine errors in reasoning, several of which have reduced the public’s compliance with important health measures. This article will also analyse rationally warranted reasoning about Covid-19 employed by public health agencies. In examining instances of good and bad reasoning during the Covid-19 pandemic, we can begin to construct a taxonomy of arguments that facilitated and hindered individual and collective responses during this public health emergency.

查看原文本刊更多论文

关于新冠肺炎的好与坏推理

Covid-19大流行为论证理论家提供了一个机会，让他们反思人们、机构和政府应对新病毒出现的方式。反应揭示了一系列的判断和决定，并不是所有的判断和决定都是合理的。本文将研究推理中的错误，其中一些错误已经降低了公众对重要卫生措施的依从性。本文还将分析公共卫生机构采用的有关Covid-19的合理推理。在审查2019冠状病毒病大流行期间好的和坏的推理实例时，我们可以开始构建一个论点分类，这些论点在这次突发公共卫生事件中促进和阻碍了个人和集体的反应。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Informal Logic PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Informal Logic publishes articles that advance the dialectic in reasoning and argumentation theory and practice. Primary criteria for the acceptance of articles with a theoretical focus or interest are: (1) the article advances the dialectic or constitutes an interesting comment on it: it presents a cogent argument, objection, interpretation or position that is an advance in relation to the background of issues and controversies on the topic; or it casts the issue addressed in a new and worthwhile light; and (2) the article makes explicit reference to the pertinent literature on its topic, and it discharges the burden of proof imposed by that scholarship. Primary criteria for acceptance of articles devoted to the teaching of informal logic, critical thinking or argumentation include: originality; utility; timeliness; and evidence of the effectiveness of the methods, materials, technologies, etc., proposed. The standard criteria for scholarly publication—topical fit with the subjects covered in the journal; adequacy of coverage to the issue addressed; clarity, organization and literateness of the prose; conceptual clarity and cogency of argumentation—apply ceteris paribus to the selection of all articles, notes and reviews.