Critical Thinking Now!

Marcin Lewiński is Associate Professor in the NOVA Institute of Philosophy, NOVA University, Lisbon, Portugal. He specializes in the philosophy of language and the philosophy of argument, employing conceptual analysis to study public argumentation. His focus is on the complex dynamics of public discourse, characterised by plural speech acts and poly-logical exchanges, with the aim of critically investigating various forms of communicative injustice and fallacies. He’s published on speech acts, practical reasoning, environmental argumentation, verbal and conceptual disputes, the concept of argument, the straw man fallacy and the principle of charity. His monograph (co-authored with Mark Aakhus, Rutgers University) Argumentation in Complex Communication: Managing Disagreement in a Polylogue was published by the Cambridge University Press in 2023. He has won several research grants, including the ongoing project MultiPod:Multilingual and Multicultural Spaces for Political Deliberation (2024-2027), funded by the Horizon Europe programme of the European Commission, where he leads the Portuguese team of the consortium. He is a founding member and the first chair of the Argumentation Community of Europe.

To see him show a paradox arising from argumentative charity, click here.

To read his ideas on the concept of argument, see here.

To read about illocutionary pluralism, look here.

Helen Pearson, PhD will present a talk on “The Fight for Facts: From ‘Beyond Belief’ to the Embrace of Evidence” on September 11 at 11am PT.

Abstract:  

In an age flooded with misinformation and contested truths, the role of evidence couldn’t be more important. But how did we come to use evidence — and why are some people rejecting it today?

Pearson will speak about her new book Beyond Belief: How Evidence Shows What Really Works. It tells the story of the “evidence revolution” — the global movement that promotes the idea that scientific evidence should guide our decisions rather than unreliable opinions or beliefs. 

Beyond Belief examines the rise of evidence-based medicine and how the principle of using evidence to determine “what works” is transforming fields from government policy and education to policing and conservation — as well as the many obstacles the evidence movement faces today. Is there a public crisis of trust in science and evidence? How can evidence stand out amidst the torrent of questionable claims online?

Essential reading for the rational-minded, Beyond Belief is an engaging portrait of the mavericks, visionaries and rebels who share the simple belief that decisions based on evidence make the world a better place. Events will be recorded and archived on the AILACT YouTube channel:https://www.youtube.com/@ailactvideos

Bio

Helen Pearson is an award-winning science journalist and editor at Nature and was named European Science Journalist of the Year 2025. She is also an Honorary Professor of Practice at University College London, teaching science writing and journalism, and a Knight Science Journalism fellow at MIT in 2026-27. Helen’s first book, The Life Project, was named science book of the year by The Observer and was a book of the year for The Economist. Her second book, Beyond Belief was published in April and named a Financial Times best summer book of 2026. Helen studied Natural Sciences at the University of Cambridge and completed a PhD in genetics at the University of Edinburgh.

Friday, April 17 11am ET

Friderike Spang is presenting. Here is her topic:

In this paper*, I treat vegan activism as a form of deliberative activism: a practice centered on exchanging reasons and engaging interlocutors through argument. Within this deliberative setting, activists are often encouraged to tailor their message to the audience, advocating for veganism in terms of health or environmental benefits rather than animal suffering. This talk examines the ethical implications of that practice. I argue that audience-tailored framing can generate significant moral costs for non-human animals: When the core concern of animal suffering is set aside for strategic reasons, deliberative exchanges can inadvertently objectify animals, weaken their moral standing, reinforce property notions, make future harms easier to justify, and create a hierarchy of moral worth among different animal species. 

The talk also opens up broader questions for the ethics of argumentation: what responsibilities do advocates bear when choosing their argumentative strategy? And, especially in the case of advocacy for non-human beings, what distinct responsibilities arise when speaking on behalf of those who cannot participate in the exchange themselves? The aim is to show that the question of “what persuades” should not be treated in isolation but considered together with other ethical concerns. 

https://bit.ly/4mIh6l6

Why and How We Ought to Address Ethics in Critical Thinking Courses       

Katharina Stevens,   Assoc. Prof. of Philosophy, University of Lethbridge            

Abstract:  There are probably as many ideas about what belongs in a critical thinking course as there are instructors who teach critical thinking courses. But one thing that is generally missing in such courses are lessons that specifically address the ethics of interpersonal reasoning. In this talk, I will present an argument for the claim that we all should teach some ethics in our critical thinking courses, and I will address shortly how I think this can be possible without having to overhaul our courses completely.

April 10, 11:00 US Eastern Time 
Zoom Link:https://wisconsin-edu.zoom.us/j/7153464115

Events will be recorded and archived on the AILACT YouTube channel:  https://www.youtube.com/@ailactvideos