Dismantling the signposts to public health? NHS data under the Health and Social Care Act 2012

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 will replace the administrative structure of the NHS in England, currently based on the resident populations of defined geographical areas, with one that relates instead to the shifting populations of individuals registered with specific general practices at given points in time.1 This will radically change the longstanding basis for collecting data routinely about the health needs of local populations, making it difficult to monitor the effect of new legislation on the health of the population locally or nationally.2 3 We discuss some of the implications of the act for existing routine data systems and the production of routine statistics that underpin essential NHS functions, including monitoring healthcare provision and ensuring equity of access, allocation of resources, and measurement of outcomes

The Epistemic Utility of Toulmin’s Argument Fields*

Toulmin’s DWC model recognizes a plurality of argument cultures through the thesis of field dependency: that the normative features of arguments vary from one field to the next. Yet, little consensus exists concerning the nature and foundations of argument fields. This paper explores the question of whether Toulminian fields have any useful role to play in the epistemic evaluation of arguments

Psychologism in contemporary argumentation theory

The last half of this century witnessed a proliferation of competing and complimentary theories of argumentation, initiated by the methodological shift from the product to the process of argument. This paper considers the effect of that shift by c omparing the different logical and epistemic status various theories assign to the standards of argument analysis and evaluation. In view of such differences, I argue that the systematic study of argumentation must clearly demarcate the normative and emp irical study of argumentation with sensitivity to both the limit and significance of each

On the norms of visual argument

While pictures can persuade, can they do so rationally – by offering reasons? Existing debate has focused on whether images are – or can be – arguments. Yet, from a normative perspective, a more pressing question concerns how the persuasive operation of images ought to be evaluated. By analyzing the concept of argument as necessarily involving reasons the paper argues that the possibility of visual arguments requires no revision to our existing normative theories of argument

Commentary on: Chris Campolo\u27s Argumentative virtues and deep disagreement

N/

Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System

While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a dialectical context as a set of critical questions of the kind commonly used in models of argumentation