Facts and arguments checking: investigating the occurrence of scientific arguments on Twitter

Abstract

A method for studying use of scientific sources in arguments on Twitter is demonstrated. Data were collected from the Twitter API v. 2.0 using Focalevents, searching for tweets with links to DOIs, and then collecting conversations around these tweets. Analysis. Three conversations on different topics were analysed searching for argumentative behaviour, use of scientific sources, their reliability, consistency and adequacy in relation to the argument and the target audience. Both quantitative and qualitative content analysis based on argumentation theory were applied. The method allowed us to identify scientific publications used argumentatively by a multiple audience in the context of Twitter conversations. The publications were used to build scientific arguments, mainly, but not exclusively, from individual and collegial expert opinion. Scientific findings were often misinterpreted and used improperly to the benefit of the argument. Through the use of argumentation theory to study conversations in a structured way, the paper demonstrates how to approach the usage of scientific publications in arguments. Scientific publications were used to build scientific arguments from different types of expert opinion, for giving proofs for claims and ounter-arguments, and inconsistent or biased arguments from individual expert opinion.

On impersonal justice: libraries' neutrality as an act of change

“…Arguments sustaining claims about neutrality were also analysed to understand (1) what motivated the different defended positions and which gap between theory and praxis needed to be addressed; (2) to reconstruct the argumentative discourse exceeding the confines of the studied contexts (Greco, 2023). In doing so, the framework for individuating and classifying different argumentative approaches (2023) and types of authorities (2022) developed by Foderaro and Lorentzen (2023) and Foderaro et al (2022), was adapted. Since in the related works, there were systematic reviews embracing scholarly publications on the topics published within the last 40 years and reporting on relevant concepts and contexts, their results were used to widen those of this study.…”