Page 85 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 85
is there anything like visual argumentation?
multiplied in different ways, pointing in different directions, but may (and
should) also change its shape, from straight to wavy or curved or even bro-
ken (indicating that the conclusion is not linear and uni-dimensional, but
had to make many detours, stops, as well as several repeated (and recon-
structed) starts; which makes it conceptually very close to enchrony, the
concept we will introduce later in this chapter), depending on how complex
the meaning and possibilities of its interpretation may be. There are many
useful arrows in stock already, like:
Which also implies that possible C’s in this case (and many others,
ambiguous or/and biased) may come not just in different forms and formu-
lations, but also with different content and different versions and values at-
tributed to this content.
This is the reason why the theory of visual argumentation would bene-
fit from concentrating more on different possible entry and exit points in rep-
resentation of visuals and interpretation of hypothetical visual arguments.
The reasoning is the seeing. Is it?
This is the reason why visual argumentation should concentrate more on
different possible entry and exit points in data representation and interpre-
tation of hypothetical visual arguments. As a kind of a case study—expos-
ing possible caveats as well as cul-de-sacs of visual argumentation—we
will concentrate on Leo Groarke’s proposal of reconstructing visual argu-
ments as presented and conceptualized in his 2013 article ‘The Elements of
Argument: Six Steps to a Thick Theory’, published in the e-book What do
we know about the world?: Rhetorical and Argumentative perspectives.
Here is the photo Groarke is taking as a starting point:
85
multiplied in different ways, pointing in different directions, but may (and
should) also change its shape, from straight to wavy or curved or even bro-
ken (indicating that the conclusion is not linear and uni-dimensional, but
had to make many detours, stops, as well as several repeated (and recon-
structed) starts; which makes it conceptually very close to enchrony, the
concept we will introduce later in this chapter), depending on how complex
the meaning and possibilities of its interpretation may be. There are many
useful arrows in stock already, like:
Which also implies that possible C’s in this case (and many others,
ambiguous or/and biased) may come not just in different forms and formu-
lations, but also with different content and different versions and values at-
tributed to this content.
This is the reason why the theory of visual argumentation would bene-
fit from concentrating more on different possible entry and exit points in rep-
resentation of visuals and interpretation of hypothetical visual arguments.
The reasoning is the seeing. Is it?
This is the reason why visual argumentation should concentrate more on
different possible entry and exit points in data representation and interpre-
tation of hypothetical visual arguments. As a kind of a case study—expos-
ing possible caveats as well as cul-de-sacs of visual argumentation—we
will concentrate on Leo Groarke’s proposal of reconstructing visual argu-
ments as presented and conceptualized in his 2013 article ‘The Elements of
Argument: Six Steps to a Thick Theory’, published in the e-book What do
we know about the world?: Rhetorical and Argumentative perspectives.
Here is the photo Groarke is taking as a starting point:
85
