Skip to main content

The Challenge for Public Health

  • Chapter
  • 715 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter argues that public health can only effectively manage the health of populations if it engages with the cognitive strategies that lay people use to judge public health problems. These strategies have always been a part of human rational competence. Yet, the application of this important rational resource to issues in public health has been neglected by theorists to date. The chapter examines three disciplines which converge on the study of reasoning in health contexts: critical thinking; health psychology; and the public understanding of science. Although each of these disciplines has a different set of explanatory concerns, it is argued that none of them succeed in addressing the cognitive strategies that people use to make judgements about public health issues. It is contended that the hitherto neglected discipline of informal logic provides a valuable starting point for the development of a theory of public health reasoning.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barke, R. P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 13(4), 425–439.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D. (2004). Risk, communication and health psychology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowell, T., & Kemp, G. (2009). Critical thinking: A concise guide (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K., & Rutter, L. (2008). Critical thinking for social work (2nd ed.). Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • BSE Inquiry Report. (2000). Volume 1: Findings and conclusions. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlo, G. L., Lee, N. L., Sund, K. G., & Pettygrove, S. D. (1992). The interplay of science, values, and experiences among scientists asked to evaluate the hazards of dioxin, radon, and environmental tobacco smoke. Risk Analysis, 12(1), 37–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christakos, G. (2002a). On a deductive logic-based spatiotemporal random field theory. Probability Theory & Mathematical Statistics, 66, 54–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakos, G. (2002b). On the assimilation of uncertain physical knowledge bases: Bayesian and non-Bayesian techniques. Advances in Water Resources, 25(8–12), 1257–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christakos, G., Olea, R. A., Serre, M. L., Yu, H.-L., & Wang, L.-L. (2005). Interdisciplinary public health reasoning and epidemic modelling: The case of black death. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2002). Reasoning under uncertainty: The role of two informal fallacies in an emerging scientific inquiry. Informal Logic, 22(2), 113–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2004). Analogical reasoning as a tool of epidemiological investigation. Argumentation, 18(4), 427–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2005). Giving science a bad name: Politically and commercially motivated fallacies in BSE inquiry. Argumentation, 19(2), 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2010). Rethinking the BSE crisis: A study of scientific reasoning under uncertainty. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2011). Considering risk assessment up close: The case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Health, Risk & Society, 13(3), 255–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2012a). The contribution of informal logic to public health. Perspectives in Public Health, 132(2), 66–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2012b). Scaring the public: Fear appeal arguments in public health reasoning. Informal Logic, 32(1), 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2012c). The public health scientist as informal logician. International Journal of Public Health, 57(3), 649–650.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2013a). Public health reasoning: Much more than deduction. Archives of Public Health, 71(1), 25.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2013b). Circular reasoning in public health. Cogency, 5(2), 35–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2014a). Informal fallacies as cognitive heuristics in public health reasoning. Informal Logic, 34(1), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2014b). The ‘trust’ heuristic: Arguments from authority in public health. Health Communication, 29(10), 1043–1056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2014c). Coping with uncertainty in public health: The use of heuristics. Public Health, 128(4), 391–394.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2014d). Circles and analogies in public health reasoning. Inquiry, 29(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2014e). Analogical reasoning in public health. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 3(2), 169–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doble, J. (1995). Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 4(2), 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambrill, E. D. (2005). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2011). What are natural frequencies? British Medical Journal, 343, d6386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2012). Why do single event probabilities confuse patients. British Medical Journal, 344, e245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (1994). Logical self-defense. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Devitt, S., & Smith, L. (2007). Critical thinking in health and social care. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008. Arlington: National Science Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, S., & Horn, S. (2004). Series foreword. In D. Berry (Ed.), Risk, communication and health psychology (pp. vi–vii). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinelli, S., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (Eds.). (2014). Argumentation and health. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva, C. L., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Barke, R. P. (2007). Reconciling scientists’ beliefs about radiation risks and social norms: Explaining preferred radiation protection standards. Risk Analysis, 27(3), 755–773.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., Roediger, H. L., & Halpern, D. F. (Eds.). (2007). Critical thinking in psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (2004). Belief in the law of small numbers. In E. Shafir (Ed.), Preference, belief and similarity: Selected writings by Amos Tversky (pp. 193–202). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2005). Critical thinking for AS level. Oxford: How To Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, E., & Tinker, T. (2009). Effective health risk communication about pandemic influenza for vulnerable populations. American Journal of Public Health, 99(S2), S324–S332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Washburn, P. (2009). The vocabulary of critical thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weed, D. L. (1995). Epidemiology, the humanities, and public health. American Journal of Public Health, 85(7), 914–918.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  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 

  • Cummings, L. (2015) The use of ‘no evidence‘ statements in public health. Informal Logic, 35(1), 32–65.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cummings, L. (2015). The Challenge for Public Health. In: Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15012-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15013-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics