Explore the vast range of titles available.

The aim of this article was to prepare a basis for further quantitative research concerning the nutritional knowledge of medical professionals (doctors) and dieticians in view of the accuracy of dietary recommendations given to patients. For this purpose, a review of literature data in this area was performed and logical fallacies were proposed as the ‘tool’ that doctors rely on in cases when they lack the proper knowledge required to be able give an informed and beneficial recommendation. In the course of the study, it was found that nutritional education is neglected in medical curricula, while dieticians are underused as professionals in clinical settings. Furthermore, numerous characteristics of the medical profession and the doctor–patient relationship are conducive to committing several types of logical fallacies, prompted mainly by the need for providing advice without delay and the infallibility traditionally expected from doctors. Hence, the gaps in nutritional knowledge and the fallacious character of recommendations, in addition to the re-valuation of the role of the nutritionist, need to be further investigated in order to improve the quality of patient advice in the area of dietary requirements as well as to propose the necessary changes in curricula.

Leading invasion biologists sometimes dismiss critics and criticisms of their field by invoking “the straw man” fallacy. Critics of invasion biology are also labelled as a small group of “naysayers” or “contrarians”, who are sometimes engaging in “science denialism”. Such unfortunate labels can be seen as a way to possibly suppress legitimate debates and dismiss or minimize reasonable concerns about some aspects of invasion biology, including the uncertainties about the geographic origins and complex environmental impacts of species, and the control programs against species perceived as “invasive”. In assessing the quality of the debate in this area, we examine the validity of the use of various strategies, including the “straw man” concept, and explore a range of potential logical fallacies present in some recent prominent discussions about invasion biology and so-called “invasive” species. The goal is to add some clarity to the concepts involved, point out some problematic issues, and improve the quality of the debates as the discussions move forward.

Health education encompasses building health knowledge, but also training skills such as critical thinking, that guide individuals’ ability to access, understand and use health information to take care of their own health (WHO, 1998). This study aimed to document expert discussions on the content of an ideal health education curriculum for higher music education (HME) students in the UK, integrating critical thinking. Four interdisciplinary workshops were conducted, where 67 experts in relevant fields discussed the content of four lists created based on literature reviews (cognitive biases, logical fallacies, critical appraisal tools and health topics). Notes taken during the discussions were thematically analysed. Most of the participants thought that the topics and tools were relevant. Two of four identified themes are reported in this paper, which represents the first of a two-part series: (1) critical thinking applied to health; and (2) misconceptions. This is the first attempt to document conversations aimed at using the applied knowledge of key stakeholders to discuss the content of an ideal health education curriculum integrating critical thinking, for conservatoire students.

Yawning makes one yawn, crying makes one cry. In the same way, a shiver, appetite, sexual desire and confidence are transmitted from one person to another. These examples capture the contagion-like dimension of emotion, spreading rapidly among people with tangible behavioural manifestations. Emotional contagion still challenges scientific explanation, and philosophical, scientific and anthropological topics converge around this issue. In Medieval Latin, there is a specific name for this contagion: compassio (‘compassion’). Etymologically, ‘compassion’ means the co-experience of a ‘passion’, involving an involuntary reaction of the soul or the body imitating the reactions of others. The book investigates how these topics were treated in medieval learned texts, and illuminates the twofold enigma, that of the trajectory of the term compassio , and that of explaining the phenomenon it denoted.

Understanding how opinions evolve is essential for addressing phenomena such as polarization, radicalization, and consensus formation. In this work, we investigate how language shapes opinion dynamics among Large Language Model (LLM) agents by simulating multi-round debates.Using our framework, we find that agent populations consistently converge toward agreement, not through sycophancy or blind conformity, but via a structured and asymmetric persuasion process. Agents are more likely to accept, and thus be persuaded by, opinions that are more agreeable relative to the discussion framing, revealing a directional bias in how opinions evolve. LLM agents selectively adopt peers’ views, showing neither bounded confidence nor indiscriminate agreement. Moreover, agents frequently produce fallacious arguments, and are significantly influenced by them: logical fallacies, especially those of relevance and credibility, play a measurable role in driving opinion change. These results not only uncover emergent behaviours in agents’ dynamics, but also highlight the dual role of LLMs as both generators and victims of flawed reasoning, raising important considerations for their deployment in socially sensitive contexts.

Background Numerous groups, such as the tobacco industry, have deliberately altered and misrepresented knowable facts and empirical evidence to promote an agenda, often for monetary benefit, with consequences for environmental and public health. Previous research has explored cases individually, but none have conducted an in-depth comparison between cases. The purpose of this study was to compile a comprehensive list of tactics used by disparate groups and provide a framework for identifying further instances of manufactured doubt. Methods We examined scholarly books, peer-reviewed articles, well-researched journalism pieces, and legal evidence related to five disparate industries and organizations selected for their destructive impacts on environmental and public health (tobacco, coal, and sugar industries, manufacturers of the pesticide Atrazine, and the Marshall Institute, an institute focused on climate change research, and other scientists from the era that associated with those in the Institute). These documents provided evidence for a list of tactics used to generate pro-industry spin and manufacture doubt about conferred harm. We then identified trends among sets of strategies that could explain their differential use or efficacy. Results We recognized 28 unique tactics used to manufacture doubt. Five of these tactics were used by all five organizations, suggesting that they are key features of manufactured doubt. The intended audience influences the strategy used to misinform, and logical fallacies contribute to their efficacy. Conclusions This list of tactics can be used by others to build a case that an industry or group is deliberately manipulating information associated with their actions or products. Improved scientific and rhetorical literacy could be used to render them less effective, depending on the audience targeted, and ultimately allow for the protection of both environmental health and public health more generally.

The spread of fake news and the influence of moral reasoning on public opinion present significant challenges in climate change communication. This study examines how the ideological underpinnings of conservatism and liberalism, combined with logical fallacies and fake news, shape public perceptions of climate change. Using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ), and a quantitative online survey of 288 participants, we assess whether individuals identified as liberal or conservative are more prone to accept flawed reasoning. Results show that conservatives are significantly more susceptible to a broader range of logical fallacies, including emotional manipulation, appeals to authority, and oversimplified arguments—patterns commonly associated with fallacies such as Argumentum ad hominem, Straw Man, and Tu quoque. Meanwhile, liberals, though less vulnerable overall, are particularly influenced by specific fallacies which align with their moral focus on harm and fairness. The findings offer new insights into the intersection of moral psychology, political ideology, and misinformation, with practical implications for designing ideologically tailored climate change messages.

Because of China’s new wave of COVID-19 in May 2023, the issue of tackling COVID-19 misinformation remains relevant. Based on Lippmann’s theory of public opinion and agenda setting theory, this article aims to examine the concept of digital pseudo-identification as a type of logical fallacy that refers to supporting journalists’ opinions with ‘false’ arguments that lack factual evidence. To do so, the study applied computer-aided content analysis, as well as rhetorical and critical discourse analyses, to examine 400 articles related to four COVID-19 vaccines (‘Oxford-AstraZeneca’, ‘Pfizer-BioNTech’, ‘Sputnik V’ and ‘Sinovac’) published on the online versions of two major British and American mainstream media sources between August 2020 and December 2021. The results of the study show that journalists of the ‘The New York Times’ and ‘The Guardian’ used similar logical fallacies, including the opinions of pseudo-authorities and references to pseudo-statistics and stereotypes, which contributed to creating distorted representations of the COVID-19 vaccines and propagating online misinformation. The study also reveals political bias in both of the mainstream media sources, with relatively more positive coverage of the European vaccines than non-European vaccines. The findings have important implications for journalism and open up perspectives for further research on the concept of digital pseudo-identification in the humanities and social sciences.

We analyze the “Logical fallacies and reasonable debates in invasion biology: a response to Guiaşu and Tindale” article by Frank et al., and also discuss this work in the context of recent intense debates in invasion biology, and reactions by leading invasion biologists to critics of aspects of their field. While we acknowledge the attempt by Frank et al., at least in the second half of their paper, to take into account more diverse points of view about non-native species and their complex roles in ecosystems, we also find the accusations of misrepresenting invasion biology, for instance by “cherry-picking” and “constructing ‘straw people’”, directed at the Guiaşu and Tindale study to be unwarranted. Despite the sometimes harsh responses by leading invasion biologists to critics of their field, we believe that persistent and fundamental problems remain in invasion biology, and we discuss some of these problems in this article. Failing to recognize these problems, and simply dismissing or minimizing legitimate criticisms, will not advance the cause, or enhance the general appeal, of invasion biology and will prevent meaningful progress in understanding the multiple contributions non-native species can bring to various ecosystems worldwide. We recommend taking a more open-minded and pragmatic approach towards non-native species and the novel ecosystems they are an integral part of.

In today’s world, there is too much information pollution and people circulate it without questioning, and the claims on controversial issues often contain fallacies and conspiracy theories. Considering this point of view, it is necessary to create citizens who critically evaluate information. In order to achieve this goal, science educators need to address students’ evaluation of fallacies on controversial issues. The aim of the present study, thus, is to explore eighth graders' evaluation of fallacies about vaccination. We used case study in the study in which 29 eighth grade students participated. We adapted a rubric that was developed by Lombardi et al. (Int J Sci Educ 38(8):1393–1414, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1193912) to assess students' evaluation levels between claims and evidence and used it to analyze students' evaluations of each fallacy in groups and individually. The findings of this study indicate that students were mostly unable to evaluate claims and evidence critically. We advocate that attempts should be made so that students cope with misinformation and disinformation, ensuring that they establish a consistent relationship between claim and the evidence, and the social and cultural factors that affect their evaluation of false claims should be identified. The implications of this study suggest to make deliberate attempts in order to enable middle school students to evaluate claims and evidence critically in various science topics, particularly in health issues, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications of the present research include suggestion of a method including discussions of fallacies about controversial issues and utilizing additional data sources such as interviews to reveal student ideas in-depth and analyze students' decision-making skills.