Why Images Cannot be Arguments, But Moving Ones Might

Argumentation 34 (2):207-236 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Similar books and articles

Faith and the Existence of God.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.
Logic and Normativity.Elizabeth Olsen - 2012 - Dissertation, University of Otago

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-06-03

Downloads
1,078 (#11,525)

6 months
390 (#4,587)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen
Hong Kong Baptist University
Marc Champagne
Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Citations of this work

A Pragmatic-Semiotic Defence of Bivalence.Marc Champagne - 2022 - History and Philosophy of Logic 43 (2):143-157.
Diagrams and alien ways of thinking.Marc Champagne - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 75 (C):12-22.
Modular vs. diagrammatic reasoning.Angelina Bobrova & Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen - 2022 - Pragmatics and Cognition 29 (1):111-134.
Pragmaticism.Charles S. Peirce - 2024 - De Gruyter.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The extended mind.Andy Clark & David J. Chalmers - 1998 - Analysis 58 (1):7-19.
Philosophical Investigations.Ludwig Wittgenstein - 1953 - New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Blackwell. Edited by G. E. M. Anscombe.
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.

View all 78 references / Add more references