Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10397/89913
Title: | Good and bad reasoning about COVID-19 | Authors: | Cummings, L | Issue Date: | 2020 | Source: | Informal logic, 2020, v. 40, no. 4, p. 521-544 | 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 have facilitated and hindered individual and collective responses during this public health emergency. | Keywords: | Analogy Argument from ignorance Coronavirus COVID-19 Equivocation Fallacy Infectious disease Pandemic Public health Reasoning |
Publisher: | University of Windsor * Department of Philosophy | Journal: | Informal logic | ISSN: | 0824-2577 | EISSN: | 2293-734X | DOI: | 10.22329/il.v40i4.6310 | Rights: | Posted with permission of the publisher and author. |
Appears in Collections: | Journal/Magazine Article |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
6310-Article Text-18265-3-10-20210219.pdf | 549.32 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Page views
43
Last Week
0
0
Last month
Citations as of Apr 28, 2024
Downloads
17
Citations as of Apr 28, 2024
SCOPUSTM
Citations
5
Citations as of Apr 26, 2024
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.