View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Plausible or problematic? Evaluating logical fallacies in a scientific text.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
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.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 188856609
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Plausible or problematic? Evaluating logical fallacies in a scientific text.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tiffin-Richards%2C+Simon+P%2E%22">Tiffin-Richards, Simon P.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Münchow%2C+Hannes%22">Münchow, Hannes</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Richter%2C+Tobias%22">Richter, Tobias</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Thinking+%26+Reasoning%22">Thinking & Reasoning</searchLink>. Nov2025, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p546-585. 40p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Logical+fallacies%22">Logical fallacies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Judgment+%28Psychology%29%22">Judgment (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+literature%22">Scientific literature</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+load%22">Cognitive load</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Metacognition%22">Metacognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+communication%22">Scientific communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Eye+movement+measurements%22">Eye movement measurements</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Logic%22">Logic</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>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.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=188856609
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13546783.2025.2473353
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 40
        StartPage: 546
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Logical fallacies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Judgment (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific literature
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive load
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Metacognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Eye movement measurements
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Logic
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Plausible or problematic? Evaluating logical fallacies in a scientific text.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tiffin-Richards, Simon P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Münchow, Hannes
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Richter, Tobias
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Text: Nov2025
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 13546783
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 31
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Thinking & Reasoning
              Type: main
ResultId 1