Page 87 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 87
is there anything like visual argumentation?
and competing hypotheses on the identity of the fruit, I went back
and took the photographs reproduced below. On the basis of these
photographs, the fruit was quickly identified as breadfruit.
So the frame in question is the first one mentioned: introducing/show-
ing a peculiarly looking fruit. And here is how Groarke reconstructs the ar-
gument (actually the process of arriving from argument(s) to conclusion)
in question:
The argument that established this conclusion compared my pho-
tographs to similar photographs found in encyclopaedia accounts
of breadfruit. One might summarize the reasoning as: ‘The fruit
is breadfruit, for these photographs are like standard photographs
of breadfruit.’ But this is just a verbal paraphrase. The actual rea-
soning—what convinces one of the conclusion—is the seeing of the
sets of photographs in question. Using a variant of standard dia-
gram techniques for argument analysis, we might map the struc-
ture of the argument as:
I +I
⇓
C
where C is the conclusion that the fruit is a piece of breadfruit, I1
is the set of photographs I took, and I2 is the iconic photographs
of breadfruit to which they were compared.
Comparing the visuals as argumentation
But should (and does) the reasoning really consist just of ‘the seeing of the
sets of photographs in question’? Is just seeing and visually comparing pho-
tographs from different sources really enough for a reasoned, justified con-
clusion (in question)? And last but not least, let us not neglect Groarke’s re-
mark that ‘on the basis of these photographs, the fruit was quickly identified
as breadfruit’. Is the velocity of (visual?) reasoning to be considered a neces-
sary and sufficient criterion for good argumentation?
In order to answer these questions, we will be replicating Groarke’s
procedure. Here are some photos of breadfruit found in different encyclo-
paedias:
87
and competing hypotheses on the identity of the fruit, I went back
and took the photographs reproduced below. On the basis of these
photographs, the fruit was quickly identified as breadfruit.
So the frame in question is the first one mentioned: introducing/show-
ing a peculiarly looking fruit. And here is how Groarke reconstructs the ar-
gument (actually the process of arriving from argument(s) to conclusion)
in question:
The argument that established this conclusion compared my pho-
tographs to similar photographs found in encyclopaedia accounts
of breadfruit. One might summarize the reasoning as: ‘The fruit
is breadfruit, for these photographs are like standard photographs
of breadfruit.’ But this is just a verbal paraphrase. The actual rea-
soning—what convinces one of the conclusion—is the seeing of the
sets of photographs in question. Using a variant of standard dia-
gram techniques for argument analysis, we might map the struc-
ture of the argument as:
I +I
⇓
C
where C is the conclusion that the fruit is a piece of breadfruit, I1
is the set of photographs I took, and I2 is the iconic photographs
of breadfruit to which they were compared.
Comparing the visuals as argumentation
But should (and does) the reasoning really consist just of ‘the seeing of the
sets of photographs in question’? Is just seeing and visually comparing pho-
tographs from different sources really enough for a reasoned, justified con-
clusion (in question)? And last but not least, let us not neglect Groarke’s re-
mark that ‘on the basis of these photographs, the fruit was quickly identified
as breadfruit’. Is the velocity of (visual?) reasoning to be considered a neces-
sary and sufficient criterion for good argumentation?
In order to answer these questions, we will be replicating Groarke’s
procedure. Here are some photos of breadfruit found in different encyclo-
paedias:
87
