| Title |
Logical fallacies and invasion biology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology & Philosophy, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10539-018-9644-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Radu Cornel Guiaşu, Christopher W. Tindale |
| Abstract |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 27% |
| Environmental Science | 11 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 22 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2022.
All research outputs
#12,962,877
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Biology & Philosophy
#408
of 662 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,481
of 335,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology & Philosophy
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 662 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.