Plausible or problematic? Evaluating logical fallacies in a scientific text.
Saved in:
| Title: | Plausible or problematic? Evaluating logical fallacies in a scientific text. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Tiffin-Richards, Simon P. (AUTHOR), Münchow, Hannes (AUTHOR), Richter, Tobias (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Thinking & Reasoning. Nov2025, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p546-585. 40p. |
| Subjects: | Logical fallacies, Judgment (Psychology), Scientific literature, Cognitive load, Metacognition, Scientific communication, Eye movement measurements, Logic |
| Abstract: | Informal arguments are integral to socioscientific discourse. However, even university students often struggle to judge the plausibility of arguments accurately. We investigated whether strategic reanalysis while reading, i.e., looking back and rereading parts of a text, predicts the likelihood of detecting and processing implausible arguments. In two experiments, participants' eye movements were recorded while they read arguments embedded in an expository text. The text was presented passage by passage and participants judged the plausibility of each section in turn. The results of Experiment 1 (N = 51) and preregistered Experiment 2 (N = 93) suggest that processing arguments containing argumentation fallacies are cognitively effortful, as indicated by eye movement measures of reanalysis of implausible arguments. The pattern of results supports the idea that successful detection and processing of implausible information is reflected in increased reanalysis of flawed arguments, corresponding to strategic processes of epistemic elaboration. Experiment 3 (N = 115) further examined whether plausibility judgements reflect reasoners' perceived argument strength. Our results suggest that reasoners perceive arguments as plausible when they deem them both persuasive and free of argumentation fallacies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Thinking & Reasoning is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Informal arguments are integral to socioscientific discourse. However, even university students often struggle to judge the plausibility of arguments accurately. We investigated whether strategic reanalysis while reading, i.e., looking back and rereading parts of a text, predicts the likelihood of detecting and processing implausible arguments. In two experiments, participants' eye movements were recorded while they read arguments embedded in an expository text. The text was presented passage by passage and participants judged the plausibility of each section in turn. The results of Experiment 1 (N = 51) and preregistered Experiment 2 (N = 93) suggest that processing arguments containing argumentation fallacies are cognitively effortful, as indicated by eye movement measures of reanalysis of implausible arguments. The pattern of results supports the idea that successful detection and processing of implausible information is reflected in increased reanalysis of flawed arguments, corresponding to strategic processes of epistemic elaboration. Experiment 3 (N = 115) further examined whether plausibility judgements reflect reasoners' perceived argument strength. Our results suggest that reasoners perceive arguments as plausible when they deem them both persuasive and free of argumentation fallacies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 13546783 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/13546783.2025.2473353 |
