The chapter answers the question ‘Why has the rule of law become so fragile?’ as set up by the 2023 Nine Dots Prize competition. It shows how the liberal narrative of the rule of law is built on repressing the political elements of the legal system. Using Jungian psychoanalysis to analyse the crises of the rule of law, the author shows that the more we repress democratic politics from the legal system, the more the politics will strike back as ‘shadow’ in a distorted, anti-democratic form. The chapter also deepens the analysis of how DWE works politically with anger, preventing it from turning into ‘free-floating rage’ that can be exploited by authoritarian populism. It introduces the notion of ‘critical feeling’ to complement ‘critical thinking’ in contemporary academia.

The question of legitimation, according to the analysis of the Frankfurt scholars, contains an unanswered aspect pertaining to the entire normative approach. This is about the final arbiter to decide whether a regulatory system can claim legitimacy. It can be logically suggested that such a final arbiter needs to be positioned outside of the normative system in question. Once we can agree that the natality aspect of fundamental rights is lost in the transfer from the non-digital domain, we see that the Frankfurt school’s aspiration towards the general explanatory power is lost as well. The relational chain stops after the creation of the digital narrative; that is, normativity does not follow as a logical result from internal development inside the digital domain. Despite the relational chain being broken, normativity exists in and for the digital domain. If not a result of the development as proposed by the Frankfurt school, there have to be other explanatory venues. The main among these is the concept of self-normativity.

This chapter opens with a review of the dangers of misinformation and conspiracy theory beliefs. We then review the literature on debunking techniques, highlighting why debunking is largely ineffective at combatting QAnon and other conspiracy theories. Although corrections are largely ineffective, repeated corrections, warnings, and alternative accounts for misinformation can improve their effectiveness. In contrast to debunking, another approach is “prebunking”; trying to prevent conspiracies rather than counter them. Based on inoculation theory, Banas and Miller (2013) found that both fact-based and logic-based messages delivered before a conspiracy film helped build up participants’ resistance to that message. Next, this chapter discusses the role of media literacy in the QAnon—and other more general—conspiracies. Research has indicated that greater news media literacy relates negatively to beliefs in conspiracies (Craft et al., 2017). A brief discussion of how QAnon is similar or different from other groups is offered, along with some research questions for future study about QAnon specifically.

This chapter brings central elements of the book to the fore, reflects the need for critical thinking, and problematizes the future of agreement-making and the study thereof. In doing so, it addresses critical questions that run through all chapters of the book: Why does it matter to “be there”? How do I navigate closeness and emotions? Is my data ever complete? What will “being there” mean in the future? Global environmental agreement-making is in constant flux, adapting to changing institutional circumstances, power relations, and new emerging environmental problems. Although the multilateral setting with its “old-fashioned” diplomatic practices and formalities creates the impression of stability, routine, and immutability, there is change and the possibility to do global environmental relations differently. We understand critical scholarship to have a vital role in illuminating enduring power relations and revealing potential openings for change and transformation to ensure agreement-making enables better collective stewardship of the Earth. This aspiration nourished the objective of this book to problematize how and why we conduct research at and on global environmental negotiations and to evaluate and expand the concepts and methods available to further this study. The chapter closes with a reflection on future research questions and themes.

The ability to respond critically to any text is a learnt ability which needs some innate ability before it can be developed. That is, critical thinking is a variegated talent, linked to intelligence and curiosity, which is hard-wired into the human brain but is not always fostered equally. We are all different according to aspects of biology, intelligence and personality. Likewise, we are all different according to our experience of being encouraged to use these natural abilities. Indeed, there is even some evidence that critical thinking is an ability that is only really developed at all after the teenage years. This idea is consistent with other theories of literacy, which state that there must be an inherent ability to decode language before it can be developed, and that any form of literacy is incremental. That means that each layer of literacy builds on previous levels, and that we must be cognitively ready for each stage. Critical literacy is, therefore, a higher level of literacy which builds on foundational forms of literacy. We need to be able to decode language systems at the semiotic, denotational and connotational levels in order to produce sense. Once we produce this meaning through textual reception, we can start to definitively question what we are being told, building on whatever latent critical ability we already have.

The introductory chapter defines pseudoscience as it relates to therapy. Potential harms of using pseudoscientific interventions are discussed. Pseudoscience is contrasted with attempts to identify science-based therapies. The chapter identifies the challenge in distinguishing between science and pseudoscience due to the fuzzy boundary between these two constructs.

This chapter addresses the question of why teach arbitration, what should be taught, and how it should b e taught. It does so from the perspective of one who believes the Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot is one of the best pedagogical tools in legal education, and in particular for teaching arbitration. I begin with comments about Professor Eric Bergston’s vision that underlies the Vis Moot. In determining that arbitration should be taught in order to train the coming generations of arbitrators and arbitration counsel, I provide five core reasons for teaching arbitration. I follow with consideration of what should be taught, which must include not only doctrine and skills, but an understanding of the importance of arbitration to the rule of law generally. I close with some brief thoughts on how to teach arbitration and the importance of fitting the method to the teacher.

[9.1] As well as a body of legal doctrine, statutory interpretation is an area of skill and technique. To a degree these techniques can be described and modelled. With reference to actual cases, this chapter models techniques for undertaking legal analysis of an Act, identifying interpretative clues or indications of meaning (‘interpretative factors’), formulating alternative constructions (rival contentions as to the meaning of the words in question), evaluating interpretative arguments, determining the preferable construction, and presenting a legal opinion and reasons for judgment.

This chapter describes different modeling approaches to understand the space environment and make space weather forecasts. Different types of models from toy models and empirical models to physics-based models are described and how they are used to understand space. The two major approaches to modeling the space environment – kinetic or magnetohydrodynamic – are described. After defining new statistical and machine learning approaches, a supplement explores Carl Sagan’s list of logical fallacies that are useful for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of arguments.

The accelerating development of technological power over ourselves and our environment raises the stakes of getting our beliefs right. I suggest that we can significantly improve our processes of belief formation by increasing actively open-minded thinking (AOT). Actively open-minded thinking helps us form more accurate and well-rounded beliefs by increasing the depth and – more importantly – the breadth of information search and inference. Because individuals do not always have time for adequate investigation, AOT is also a valuable indicator of which epistemic authorities are most likely to have reached accurate conclusions via effective methods. It is associated with better reasoning across a wide variety of contexts, leading to beliefs that are more accurate, more complete, and less biased. Yet it is not regularly taught in schools, nor is it a feature of typical public discourse. I suggest several strategies for increasing this cognitive habit in school and society.

The analysis and translation of extreme texts, or highly constrained texts, such as acronyms, anagrams, lipograms, pangrams, plays on words, and puns but also poems, lyrics, and even novels, are not just useful teaching practices that can allow students to improve their linguistic competence, both in their native and foreign languages. These activities have a fundamental pedagogical and political value. In training translators, ‘talk-and-chalk’ lectures should be replaced by collaborative workshops, attended not only by teachers and students but also by experts and actors in the editorial productive chain (professional translators, editors, publishers, and clients).

Developing and practicing ethics requires an active and mindful approach that continues from graduate school throughout our careers. Because life in the real world tends to be messy with gray areas, contradictions, surprises, and rough edges, we must stay alert, distrust quick answers, and keep questioning. Knowing the ethics codes, laws, and professional guidelines is important; however, it is not enough. It is important not to let ethics, laws, and standards replace critical thinking, professional judgment, and personal responsibility. Our ability to think creatively and respond ethically to even the most daunting challenges seem mirrored by our shared human abilities to rationalize even the most unethical approaches. This chapter discusses the importance of learning to recognize and avoid the classic ethical fallacies. Attention is paid to the importance of knowing our weaknesses, ethical blind spots, biases, and ways to address these fallibilities in our careers.

Political science (PSCI) is housed in the social sciences, which together “examine what it means to be a social being, ranging from the minutiae of human behavior … to large scale social movements, demographics, economics and politics” (European Science Foundation, 2016). Undergraduate research (UR) in PSCI, whether using quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods, helps students develop critical thinking skills and tools, whereby they can apply what they learn in class to the real world, rather than just memorizing facts and figures that are forgotten after they take each semester exam.