Circles and Analogies in Public Health Reasoning

Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 29 (2):35-59 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The study of the fallacies has changed almost beyond recognition since Charles Hamblin called for a radical reappraisal of this area of logical inquiry in his 1970 book Fallacies. The “witless examples of his forbears” to which Hamblin referred have largely been replaced by more authentic cases of the fallacies in actual use. It is now not unusual for fallacy and argumentation theorists to draw on actual sources for examples of how the fallacies are used in our everyday reasoning. However, an aspect of this move towards greater authenticity in the study of the fallacies, an aspect which has been almost universally neglected, is the attempt to subject the fallacies to empirical testing of the type which is more commonly associated with psychological experiments on reasoning. This paper addresses this omission in research on the fallacies by examining how subjects use two fallacies – circular argument and analogical argument – during a reasoning task in which subjects are required to consider a number of public health scenarios. Results are discussed in relation to a view of the fallacies as cognitive heuristics that facilitate reasoning in a context of uncertainty.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 102,020

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-01-10

Downloads
17 (#1,168,909)

6 months
8 (#636,535)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Louise Cummings
Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Citations of this work

Good and Bad Reasoning about COVID-19.Louise Cummings - 2020 - Informal Logic 40 (4):521-544.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references