Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arguing Through Uncertainty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rethinking the BSE Crisis

Abstract

In the last chapter, the evidential basis of Wilesmith et al.’s aetiological claim was examined in detail. That claim sought to relate BSE and scrapie in the sense that BSE was caused by the transmission of scrapie to cattle. The evidence in support of this claim, I argued, was not without its weaknesses. The result was a rather tentative claim that was certainly grounds enough for proceeding in inquiry, but still fell some way short of the type of outright commitment that is associated with an established scientific thesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Perelman Ch (1963) The idea of justice and the problem of argument. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller S, Collier JH (2004) Philosophy, rhetoric, and the end of knowledge: a new beginning for science and technology studies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewelyn JE (1962) Presuppositions, assumptions and presumptions. Theoria 28 (2):158–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (2006) Dealing with uncertainty: setting the agenda for the 5th ministerial conference on environment and health. Report of a WHO meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods J, Walton DN (1978) The fallacy of ‘ad ignorantiam’. Dialectica 32 (2):87–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahane H (1971) Logic and contemporary rhetoric: the use of reason in everyday life. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech GN (1983) Principles of pragmatics. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (1985) Are circular arguments necessarily vicious? Am Philos Q 22 (4):263–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven M (1980) The philosophical and pragmatic significance of informal logic. In: Blair JA, Johnson RH (eds) Informal logic: the first international symposium, Edgepress, Inverness, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (1995) The pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In: Hansen HV, Pinto RC (eds) Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, pp 130–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay DM, Woods J (to appear) Seductions and shortcuts: fallacies in the cognitive economy. Elsevier, North Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Smithson M (2008) Psychology’s ambivalent view of uncertainty. In: Bammer G, Smithson M (eds) Uncertainty and risk: multidisciplinary perspectives, Earthscan, London, pp 205–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullman-Margalit E (1983) On presumption. J Philos 80 (3):143–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter R (1987) Nonmonotonic reasoning. Ann Rev Comput Sci 2:147–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel W (1988) Philosophy of science: an overview for cognitive science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N (2006) Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Woods J (1995) Appeal to force. In: Hansen HV, Pinto RC (eds) Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings, The Pennsylvania State University Press, Pennsylvania, pp 240–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson C, Evans G, Leppard P, Syrette J (2004) Reactions to genetically modified food crops and how perception of risks and benefits influences consumers' information gathering. Risk Anal 24 (5):1311–1321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N (1977) Dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressel K, Wynne B (1998) Anglo-German comparison of modern risk political cultures – the BSE case. Centre for the study of environmental change, Lancaster University

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd PM, Gigerenzer G (2000) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Behav Brain Sci 23 (5):727–741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides L, Tooby J (1992) Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In: Barkow J, Cosmides L, Tooby J (eds) The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, Oxford University Press, New York, pp 163–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor JA (1983) The modularity of mind. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods J (2004) The death of argument: fallacies in agent-based reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cornulier B (1988) “Knowing whether”, “knowing who”, and epistemic closure. In: Meyer M (ed) Questions and questioning, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb JW (1972) Knowledge and justified presumption. J Philos 69 (5):123–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hample D (1982) Dual coding, reasoning and fallacies. J Am Forensic Assoc 19 (2):59–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzner LI (1973) Presumptions of reason and presumptions of justice. J Philos 70:89–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham JD (1995) Historical perspective on risk assessment in the federal government. Toxicology 102 (1–2):29–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings L (2009) Emerging infectious diseases: coping with uncertainty. Argumentation 23 (2):171–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J (2005) Knowledge and practical interests. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Christakos G, Olea RA, Serre ML, Yu H-L, Wang L-L (2005) Interdisciplinary public health reasoning and epidemic modelling: the case of black death, Springer, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (1995) A pragmatic theory of fallacy. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BB (2005) Testing and expanding a model of cognitive processing of risk information. Risk Anal 25 (3):631–650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (1981) Fallacies and the evaluation of reasoning. Am Philos Q 18 (1):13–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N (2005b) Common-sense: a new look at an old philosophical tradition. Marquette University Press, Milwaukee, WI

    Google Scholar 

  • Godden DM, Walton D (2007) A theory of presumption for everyday argumentation. Pragmatics & Cognition 15 (2):313–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins A, Aiello N, Warnock EH, Miller ML (1975) Reasoning from incomplete knowledge. In: Bobrow DG, Collins A (eds) Representation and understanding: studies in cognitive science.Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (1992) Plausible argument in everyday conversation. SUNY Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N (2005a) Studies in 20th century philosophy. Ontos Verlag, New Brunswick, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey GJ (1981) The fallacy behind fallacies. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6 (1):489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N (1976) Plausible reasoning: an introduction to the theory and practice of plausibilistic inference. Van Gorcum, Assen/Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (2005) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels D, Monforton C (2005) Manufacturing uncertainty: contested science and the protection of the public’s health and environment. Am J Public Health, 95 (S1):S39–S48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (1992) Plausible argument in everyday conversation. SUNY Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods J (2004) The death of argument: fallacies in agent-based reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Arts and Humanities, Nottingham Trent University, Clifton Campus, Clifton Lane, NG11 8NS, Nottingham, UK

    Prof. Louise Cummings

Authors
  1. Prof. Louise Cummings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louise Cummings .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cummings, L. (2010). Arguing Through Uncertainty. In: Rethinking the BSE Crisis. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9504-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9504-6_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9503-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9504-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation