Why Images Cannot be Arguments, But Moving Ones Might

Marc Champagne, Ahti Veikko Pietarinen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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 (explicit) conclusion, then that conclusion must be demarcated from the premise(s) or otherwise the argument will beg the question. If a visual argument does not include its (implicit) 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 (erased, dragged, copied, etc.) 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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalArgumentation
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

argumentation
layout
license
Visual Argument
Logic
literature
Diagrammatic Reasoning
Visual Argumentation
Conception
Layout
Charles Sanders Peirce
Acceptability

Keywords

  • C. S. Peirce
  • Diagrammatic reasoning
  • Existential Graphs
  • Visual arguments

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Why Images Cannot be Arguments, But Moving Ones Might. / Champagne, Marc; Pietarinen, Ahti Veikko.

In: Argumentation, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{725e5a2597eb43218f9cf4538f8c31ab,
title = "Why Images Cannot be Arguments, But Moving Ones Might",
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 (explicit) conclusion, then that conclusion must be demarcated from the premise(s) or otherwise the argument will beg the question. If a visual argument does not include its (implicit) 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 (erased, dragged, copied, etc.) 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 = "C. S. Peirce, Diagrammatic reasoning, Existential Graphs, Visual arguments",
author = "Marc Champagne and Pietarinen, {Ahti Veikko}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10503-019-09484-0",
language = "English",
journal = "Argumentation",
issn = "0920-427X",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why Images Cannot be Arguments, But Moving Ones Might

AU - Champagne, Marc

AU - Pietarinen, Ahti Veikko

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - 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 (explicit) conclusion, then that conclusion must be demarcated from the premise(s) or otherwise the argument will beg the question. If a visual argument does not include its (implicit) 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 (erased, dragged, copied, etc.) 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.

AB - 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 (explicit) conclusion, then that conclusion must be demarcated from the premise(s) or otherwise the argument will beg the question. If a visual argument does not include its (implicit) 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 (erased, dragged, copied, etc.) 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.

KW - C. S. Peirce

KW - Diagrammatic reasoning

KW - Existential Graphs

KW - Visual arguments

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066822844&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85066822844&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10503-019-09484-0

DO - 10.1007/s10503-019-09484-0

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85066822844

JO - Argumentation

JF - Argumentation

SN - 0920-427X

ER -