Background and Objective: The infiltration of cognitive sciences and technologies into strategic and military domains has led to the emergence of a new field of study—cognitive warfare—and has driven a growing body of scientific research in this area. Despite contributing to the development of knowledge in this field, many of these studies are not free from methodological errors. Researchers, either knowingly or unknowingly, have committed various fallacies. The purpose of this study is to identify methodological fallacies in research related to cognitive warfare.
Methods: To identify methodological fallacies in cognitive warfare research, a qualitative content analysis approach focusing on manifest content was employed. The analyzed materials consisted of articles published in reputable peer-reviewed academic journals under the topic of cognitive warfare.
Findings: The content analysis of the selected studies revealed several recurring methodological fallacies, including: Eclecticism fallacy, methodological intuitionism fallacy, Epistemic fallacy, false causality fallacy, causal reductionism fallacy, homogeneity fallacy, reductionism fallacy.
Conclusions: The identified fallacies suggest that the current trajectory of scientific research in the field of cognitive warfare has, in some cases, deviated from the path of the scientific method and veered toward pseudoscience or non-scientific reasoning. Therefore, strict adherence to methodological principles and considerations is crucial and must be seriously emphasized and evaluated in future research within this domain