Description
Book SynopsisThis open access book addresses communicative aspects of the current COVID-19 pandemic as well as the epidemic of misinformation from the perspective of argumentation theory. Argumentation theory is uniquely placed to understand and account for the challenges of public reason as expressed through argumentative discourse. The book thus focuses on the extent to which the forms, norms and functions of public argumentation have changed in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. This question is investigated along the three main research lines of the COST Action project CA 17132: European network for Argumentation and Public PoLicY analysis (APPLY): descriptive, normative, and prescriptive.
The volume offers a broad range of contributions which treat argumentative phenomena that are directly related to the changes in public discourse in the wake of the outburst of COVID-19. The volume additionally places particular emphasis on expert argumentation, given (i) the importance expert discourse has had over the last two years, and (ii) the challenges that expert argumentation has faced in the public sphere as a result of scientific uncertainty and widespread misinformation. Contributions are divided into three groups, which (i) examine various features and aspects of public and institutional discourse about the COVID-19 pandemic, (ii) scrutinize the way health policies have been discussed, debated, attacked and defended in the public sphere, and (iii) consider a range of proposals meant to improve the quality of public discourse, and public deliberation in particular, in such a way that concrete proposals for argumentative literacy will be brought to light. Overall, this volume constitutes a timely inquiry into all things argumentative in pandemic discourse. This volume is of interest to a broad readership including philosophers, linguists, communication and legal scholars, and members of the wider public who seek to better understand the discourse surrounding communicative phenomena in times of crisis.
COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a funding organisation for research and innovation networks. For more information: www.cost.eu
Table of ContentsChapter 1. The Pandemic of Argumentation.- Part I: Arguing About The Pandemic.- Chapter 2. Arguing About “COVID”: Metalinguistic Arguments on What Counts As A “Covid-19 Death”. Chapter 3. ‘Covid-19’: Meaning and Reference.- Chapter 4. Political Interference and Argumentative Styles.- Chapter 5. The Evaluative Component in Pragmatic Argumentation: An Analysis of Public Discourse During the First Wave of the Sars-Cov-2 Pandemic in Italy.- Chapter 6. Spaces of Argumentation and their Interaction: Some Elements of Thought Inspired by Controversies and Dispute in France During the Covid-19 Crisis.- Chapter 7. The Argumentative Potential of Doubt: From Legitimate Concerns to Conspiracy Theories About Covid-19 Vaccines. Chapter 8. Analysing the Public Debate About Lockdown.- Chapter 9. Responding to the COVID Conspiracy Theories: Why Narratives Themselves are More Powerful Arguments than Fact-Checking.- Chapter 10. Reshaping Society through an Expanded Understanding of the Role of Analogy: Or How the Co-Vid Crisis Can Lead to a Better World.- Chapter 11. Expert Uncertainty: Arguments Bolstering the Ethos of Expertise in Situations of Uncertainty.- Chapter 12. Conditional Perfection, Scientific Schizophrenia and Political Decisions: On the Argumentative Dark Side of Pandemic Discourse.- Part II: Justifying and Promoting Health Policies.- Chapter 13. Good and Ought in Argumentation: COVID-19 as a Case Study.- Chapter 14. Visual Argumentation and Law: Broadcasting and Justifying the Norms During the Pandemic.- Chapter 15. Securitisation and the Rediscovery of the Invisible Enemy in Times of Pandemic: Analysing Political Discourses from the European South.- Chapter 16. The UK Government’s ‘Balancing Act’ in the Pandemic. Arguing from Competing Concerns: Lives, Livelihoods and Liberties.- Chapter 17. Practical Conflicts between Law and Morality: An Argumentative Analysis of the Case of Coronavirus Contact-Tracing Apps.- Chapter 18. How to Deal with Deep Disagreements? The Role of Rhetoric in Crisis Communication: The Case of COVID-19.- Chapter 19. On Arguments from Ignorance in Policy-Making.- Chapter 20. Persuasion, Politics, and COVID-19: Audience as a Political Category.- Part III: Elements of Argumentative Literacy.- Chapter 21. Inoculating Students Against Conspiracy Theories: The Case of Covid-19.- Chapter 22. Staying up to Date with Argument Checking: Outdated News as Defeasible Arguments.- Chapter 23. Combatting Conspiratorial Thinking with Controlled Argumentation Dialogue Environments.- Chapter 24. Is Interpretation of Conspiracy Theories done in a Fair and Useful Way?.- Chapter 25. How to Handle Reasonable Disagreement: The Case of Covid-19.- Chapter 26. Constructing Arguments about COVID-19 Governmental Guidelines.- Chapter 27. “I (Don’t) Agree with You, So You Are (In)Competent” The Role of One’s Own Opinion in Accepting Arguments from Expert Opinion.
