Source Related Argumentation Found in Science Websites

Abstract

In this paper, we consider the way that web documents seeking to persuade readers of certain science claims provide information about the sources of the arguments. Our quantitative analysis reveals that web documents in our sample include hundreds of examples in which the reader is provided information regarding the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of sources. The web documents also contain a large number of examples in which the reader is provided with information about how many individuals hold a particular belief. We discuss ad hominem, ad verecundiam, and ad populum arguments, and the way that the examples found in our sample of documents are related to these argumentation schemes.

Covid-19 Research in Alternative News Media: Evidencing and Counterevidencing Practices

“…These evidencing practices are similar to the argumentation heuristics from argumentation theory (Barnes et al, 2018(Barnes et al, , 2020. References to Data/Methods and Experts/Authorities correspond to the argumentation heuristics that Barnes et al (2018Barnes et al ( , 2020 called direct and indirect evaluations of scientific claims. As a theoretical background, Barnes et al (2018Barnes et al ( , 2020 use the heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1987).…”

“…References to Data/Methods and Experts/Authorities correspond to the argumentation heuristics that Barnes et al (2018Barnes et al ( , 2020 called direct and indirect evaluations of scientific claims. As a theoretical background, Barnes et al (2018Barnes et al ( , 2020 use the heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1987). The use of Data/Methods and Experts/Authorities as evidencing practices is considered heuristics because it is not the strength of the arguments that facilitates persuasion but the heuristic cues that indicate (but do not prove) the legitimacy of the findings.…”

“…They defined direct evaluations as references to the empirical foundations of claims and indirect evaluations as references to the credibility of those who generate the data and support the scientific claims. Barnes et al (2018Barnes et al ( , 2020) also described indirect evaluations as arguments "ad hominem" or "secondhand evaluations" because they represent a type of argumentation that allows people to avoid the complexity inherent in most science claims (Bondy, 2015;Yap, 2013, p. 99). Ad hominem attacks can refer to (alleged) conflicts of interest, past misconducts, or missing competence or education (Barnes et al, 2018), thus touching on the expertise, morality, or personal characteristics of participating actors.…”

“…The present study addresses this research gap by focusing on Covid-19 science news coverage and argumentation strategies of alternative news media. In terms of theoretical background, we build on the concept of "evidencing practices" (Kinnebrock et al, 2019) and ideas from argumentation theory (Barnes et al, 2018(Barnes et al, , 2020. Evidencing practices are an evaluation mechanism employed by science communicators and can be defined as "textual (or visual) strategies to support a claim as 'true' or 'valid' " (Kinnebrock et al, 2019).…”

“…When exploring evidencing practices in the online content of alternative news media, we also examined argumentation strategies for countering or criticizing scientific Covid-19 evidence. Therefore, we combined ideas from argumentation theory regarding attacks on scientific claims (Barnes et al, 2018(Barnes et al, , 2020 with the concept of evidencing practices, arguing that common evidencing practices can also be applied as counterevidencing practices by alternative news media-for instance, by using the Data/Methods of a study to criticize it and classify its claims as "untrue" or "invalid." In terms of our empir-ical investigation, we concentrated on the application and use patterns of evidencing and/or counterevidencing practices-in short, (counter)evidencing practicesin the online content of two popular German alternative news media, NachDenkSeiten and PI News, focusing on their presentations and evaluations of biomedical studies concerning Covid-19.…”