Coping with uncertainty in public health: the use of heuristics

2015

Public health communication makes extensive use of a linguistic formulation that will be called the "no evidence" statement. This is a written or spoken statement of the form "There is no evidence that P" where P stands for a proposition that typically describes a human health risk. Danger lurks in these expressions for the hearer or reader who is not logically perspicacious, as arguments that use them are only warranted under certain conditions. The extent to which members of the public are able to determine what those conditions are will be considered by examining data obtained from 879 subjects. The role of "no evidence" statements as cognitive heuristics in public health reasoning is considered.Résumé: La communication sur la santé publique emploie souvent une expression linguistique qu'on nommera «énoncé d'absence de preuve». C'est un énoncé écrit ou oral dont la forme est «Il n'existe aucune preuve que P » où P signifie une proposition qui décrit généralement un risque pour la santé humaine. Les arguments qui utilisent ces énoncés ne sont probants que dans certaines conditions. On examinera des données obtenues de 879 sujets pour déterminer la mesure dans laquelle les membres du public peuvent identifier ces conditions. On étudiera le rôle des énoncés d'absence de preuve comme heuristique employée dans les raisonnements sur la santé publique.

Section: Testing Public Understanding Of "No Evidence" Statementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of 'No Evidence' Statements in Public Health

2015

“…A sizeable literature now exists on non-fallacious variants of most of the major fallacies. 7 An altogether smaller literature has sought to describe how these fallacies function non-fallaciously within the context of important public health issues (Cummings, 2002(Cummings, , 2004(Cummings, , 2009(Cummings, , 2010(Cummings, , 2011(Cummings, , 2012a(Cummings, , 2012b(Cummings, , 2012c(Cummings, , 2013(Cummings, , 2014d. What these latter studies have revealed is that these argument forms can sustain reasoning in contexts that preclude other modes of reasoning, principally deduction and induction.…”

Section: Heuristics and Public Health Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Variants of the argument involve claims to the effect that there is no evidence or no (scientific) justification that P is true. The argument was used extensively by scientists and government ministers during the UK"s BSE crisis, where its use was intended to reassure the public about the safety of beef for human consumption (Cummings, 2002(Cummings, , 2009(Cummings, , 2010(Cummings, , 2011(Cummings, , 2012a(Cummings, , 2012b(Cummings, , 2012c(Cummings, , 2013(Cummings, , 2014d:…”

Section: Argument From Ignorancementioning

confidence: 99%

Informal Fallacies as Cognitive Heuristics in Public Health Reasoning

2014

Abstract:The public must make assessments of a range of healthrelated issues. However, these assessments require scientific knowledge which is often lacking or ineffectively utilized by the public. Lay people must use whatever cognitive resources are at their disposal to come to judgement on these issues. It will be contended that a group of arguments-so-called informal fallacies-are a valuable cognitive resource in this regard. These arguments serve as cognitive heuristics which facilitate reasoning when knowledge is limited or beyond the grasp of reasoners. The results of an investigation into the use of these arguments by the public are reported.Résumé: Le public doit faire des évaluations d'un éventail de questions liées à la santé. Cependant, ces évaluations nécessitent des connaissances scientifiques que souvent le public n"a pas ou utilise mal. Les profanes doivent utiliser toutes les ressources cognitives qui sont à leur disposition pour aboutir à un jugement sur ces questions. Il sera soutenu qu'un groupe d'arguments -soidisant sophismes non formels -sont une ressource cognitive précieuse à cet égard. Ces arguments servent d"heuristiques cognitives qui facilitent le raisonnement lorsque la connaissance est limitée ou au-delà de la compréhension des raisonneurs. On signale les résultats d'une enquête sur l'utilisation de ces arguments par le public.

Critical Thinking in Medicine and Health

Fallacies in Medicine and Health

2020

Chapter 1 • Critical Thinking in Medicine and Health 1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Readers of this chapter will 5 appreciate the range of mundane contexts in which we are exposed to medical information and health messages. 5 understand the different responses that people have to health messages, ranging from indifference and denial to a high level of critical engagement with the content of messages. 5 appreciate the need for robust critical thinking skills in medicine and health in order to expose logical errors and conflicts of interest in the health messages we see and hear, participate in sound decision-making about one's own health, and reduce or eliminate medical errors that put patients at risk of death or serious injury. 5 have knowledge of what an informal fallacy is and understand that labels such as 'valid' and 'fallacious' are not inherent properties of arguments but apply only to arguments in certain contexts of use. 5 understand the logical tradition that surrounds the fallacies, from Aristotle's challenge to the deceptive or false refutations traded by sophists to present-day pragmatic and cognitive analyses of the fallacies.