Why Images Cannot be Arguments, But Moving Ones Might

Argumentation:1-30 (forthcoming)

Authors
Marc Champagne
Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Abstract
Some have suggested that images can be arguments. Images can certainly bolster the acceptability of individual premises. We worry, though, that the static nature of images prevents them from ever playing a genuinely argumentative role. To show this, we call attention to a dilemma. The conclusion of a visual argument will either be explicit or implicit. If a visual argument includes its conclusion, then that conclusion must be demarcated from the premise or otherwise the argument will beg the question. If a visual argument does not include its conclusion, then the premises on display must license that specific conclusion and not its opposite, in accordance with some demonstrable rationale. We show how major examples from the literature fail to escape this dilemma. Drawing inspiration from the graphical logic of C. S. Peirce, we suggest instead that images can be manipulated in a way that overcomes the dilemma. Diagrammatic reasoning can take one stepwise from an initial visual layout to a conclusion—thereby providing a principled rationale that bars opposite conclusions—and the visual inscription of this correct conclusion can come afterward in time—thereby distinguishing the conclusion from the premises. Even though this practical application of Peirce’s logical ideas to informal contexts requires that one make adjustments, we believe it points to a dynamic conception of visual argumentation that will prove more fertile in the long run.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10503-019-09484-0
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 40,686
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Extended Mind.Andy Clark & David J. Chalmers - 1998 - Analysis 58 (1):7-19.
Philosophical investigations.Ludwig Wittgenstein & G. E. M. Anscombe - 1953 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 161:124-124.
Tractatus logico-philosophicus.Ludwig Wittgenstein - 1922 - Filosoficky Casopis 52:336-341.
____ is Necessary for Interpreting a Proposition.Marc Champagne - 2019 - Chinese Semiotic Studies 15 (1):39–48.
Visualizing Thought.Barbara Tversky - 2011 - Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (3):499-535.

View all 52 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Faith and the Existence of God: R. G. Swinburne.R. G. Swinburne - 1988 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 24:121-143.
A Picture Held Us Captive: The Later Wittgenstein and Visual Argumentation.Steven W. Patterson - 2011 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 2 (2):105-134.
Logic, Art and Argument.Leo Groarke - 1996 - Informal Logic 18 (2).
Logical Consequence.J. C. Beall, Greg Restall & Gil Sagi - 2019 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Note on Induction.Ted Parent - 2013 - Think 12 (33):37-39.
The Possibility of Inductive Moral Arguments.Mark T. Nelson - 2006 - Philosophical Papers 35 (2):231-246.
Professor Fisher on Suppositions.George Bowles - 1993 - Argumentation 7 (3):237-246.
A Neglected Way of Begging the Question.Peter Kung & Masahiro Yamada - 2010 - American Philosophical Quarterly 47 (3):287.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-06-03

Total views
9 ( #744,670 of 2,243,713 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #159,662 of 2,243,713 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature