Defense of the PACE trial is based on argumentation fallacies

Steven Lubet*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

    1 Scopus citations

    Abstract

    In defense of the PACE trial, Petrie and Weinman employ a series of misleading or fallacious argumentation techniques, including circularity, blaming the victim, bait and switch, non-sequitur, setting up a straw person, guilt by association, red herring, and the parade of horribles. These are described and explained.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)1201-1205
    Number of pages5
    JournalJournal of Health Psychology
    Volume22
    Issue number9
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Aug 1 2017

    Keywords

    • PACE trial
    • beliefs
    • chronic fatigue syndrome
    • health beliefs
    • myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Applied Psychology

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Defense of the PACE trial is based on argumentation fallacies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this