1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Argumentation in Context
  4. Volume 14, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores a specialized application of visual argumentation within the domain of the natural sciences and points out a broader conceptual problem regarding the testability of visual arguments. We highlight the methodological problems of Leo Groarke’s Key-Component method that make it, in its current form, unreliable for use to test images’ argumentative role. The main reason is that visual content is ambiguous and underdetermined, especially in a scientific context. Focusing merely on visual features without the inclusion of verbal implicit premises poses a considerable challenge to reconstructing reliable premise — conclusion structures.

We posit the necessity of advancing a more sophisticated framework specifically designed to evaluate visual arguments systematically. We argue that images should be considered in a linked verbal — visual argument system in scientific arguments, in which images and other evidence complement each other and jointly support a conclusion because relying solely on visual evidence results in underdetermined inferences. The present paper exemplifies this issue through an illustrative case study focused on images of the Mars Phoenix lander. The goal of the present study is twofold: to scrutinize the findings of visual argumentation in order to extend its scope to the natural sciences, and to suggest methodological changes to the KC method to make it more reliable.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23027.cso
2025-04-17
2026-03-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23027.cso
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aberdein, Andrew
    2017 “Virtuous Norms for Visual Arguers.” Argumentation32, no.1: 1–23. 10.1007/s10503‑017‑9424‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9424-z [Google Scholar]
  2. Aspeitia, Axel Arturo Barceló
    2012 “Words and Images in Argumentation.” Argumentation26, no.3: 355–68. 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9259‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9259-y [Google Scholar]
  3. Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke
    1996 “Toward a Theory of Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy33, no.1: 1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 2007 “Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy43, no.3–4: 103–13. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blair, J. Anthony
    1996 “The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy33, no.1: 23–39. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑2363‑4_16
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_16 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2004 “The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments.” InDefining Visual Rhetorics, ed.C. A. Hill and M. Helmers, 41–61. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, repr.Abingdon: Routledge 2009.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 2015 “Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments.” Argumentation29, no.2: 217–33. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9333‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9333-3 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, James Robert
    1999 Philosophy of Mathematics: An Introduction to a World of Proofs and Pictures. Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Burri, Regula Valérie, and Joseph Dumit
    2008 “Social Studies of Scientific Imaging and Visualization.” InThe Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed.Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch and Judy Wajcman, 297–318. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cain, Alan J.
    2019 “Visual Thinking and Simplicity of Proof.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences377, no.2140: 1–13. 10.1098/rsta.2018.0032
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0032 [Google Scholar]
  11. Champagne, Marc, and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen
    2020 “Why Images Cannot Be Arguments, But Moving Ones Might.” Argumentation34, no.2: 207–36. 10.1007/s10503‑019‑09484‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09484-0 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang, Hasok
    2004 Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/0195171276.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/0195171276.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison
    2007 Objectivity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dove, Ian. J.
    2002 “Can Pictures Prove?” Logique et Analyse45, no.179–80: 309–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dove, Ian J.
    2012 “On Images as Evidence and Arguments.” InTopical Themes in Argumentation Theory, Argumentation Library series vol. 22, ed.Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 223–38. Dordrecht: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4041‑9_15
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_15 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fleming, David
    1996 “Can Pictures Be Arguments?” Argumentation and Advocacy33, no.1: 11–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Groarke, Leo
    1996 “Logic, Art and Argument.” Informal Logic18, no.2–3: 105–29. 10.22329/il.v18i2.2376
     https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v18i2.2376 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2002 “Toward a Pragma-dialectics of Visual Argument.” InAdvances in Pragma-dialectics, ed.F. H. van Eemeren, 137–51. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2007 “Beyond Words: Two Dogmas of Informal Logic.” InReason Reclaimed: Essays in Honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson, ed.H. V. Hansen and R. C. Pinto, 135–51. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 2015 “Going Multimodal: What Is a Mode of Arguing and Why Does It Matter?” Argumentation29, no.2: 135–55. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9336‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2019 “Depicting Visual Arguments: An ‘ART’ Approach.” InInformal Logic: A “Canadian” Approach to Argument, ed.Federico Puppo, 332–74. Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Groarke, Leo, and G. Kišiček
    2016 “Compassion, Authority and Baby Talk: Prosody and Objectivity.” OSSA Conference Archive, 1151. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/115
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Heshmati, Bita, and Ewa Modrzejewska
    2023 “Book of Abstract, Multimodal Argumentation: Text, Image, Sound, and Gesture in Persuasive Communication.” University of Salzburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. . “How We Argue about Images: Metavisual Disputes in Practice.” Journal of Argumentation in Context (in press). 10.1075/jaic.00031.hes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00031.hes [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnson, Ralph H.
    2003 “Why ‘Visual Arguments’ Aren’t Arguments.” OSSA Conference Archive, 491. web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/philosophy/johnsoa/visargtext.htm
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kemp, Martin
    1997 “Seeing and Picturing: Visual Representation in Twentieth-Century Science.” InCompanion to Science in the Twentieth Century, ed.J. Krige and D. Pestre, 361–90. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kidron, Ivy, and Tommy Dreyfus
    2014 “Proof Image.” Educational Studies in Mathematics87, no.3: 297–321. 10.1007/s10649‑014‑9566‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9566-y [Google Scholar]
  28. Kjeldsen, J. E.
    2007 “Visual Argumentation in Scandinavian Political Advertising: A Cognitive, Contextual, and Reception-Oriented Approach.” Argumentation and Advocacy43, no.3–4: 124–32. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821668
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821668 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2012 “Pictorial Argumentation in Advertising: Visual Tropes and Figures as a Way of Creating Visual Argumentation.” InTopical Themes in Argumentation Theory, Argumentation Library series vol. 22, ed.Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 239–55. Dordrecht: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4041‑9_16
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_16 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kjellman, Ulrika
    2019 “From Fact to Fantasy: Scientific Illustrations and Visual Representation in the Early Work of Gaston Bachman.” Journal of Documentation75, no.4: 709–30. 10.1108/JD‑11‑2018‑0189
     https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2018-0189 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakdawalla, Emily
    2008a “A Quick Update on Phoenix, Sol 50: Got Ice? Yes!” The Planetary Society. https://web.archive.org/web/20080725080018/www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001558/
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 2008b “Highlights of the Phoenix Sol 64 Press Conference.” The Planetary Society. https://web.archive.org/web/20081116041839/www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001580/
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2008c “Phoenix Sol 76 Update: Digging at Neverland, Cupboard, Stone Soup, Snow White, Burn Alive: Samples for Microscope and Tega 5: and More.” The Planetary Society. https://web.archive.org/web/20080822030411/www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001603/
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 2008d “Phoenix Update, Sol 123: Press Briefing with Carbonates, Clays, and Snow!” The Planetary Society. https://web.archive.org/web/20081012114146/www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001666/
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Lynch, Michael, and Steve Woolgar
    1988 “Introduction: Sociological Orientations to Representational Practice in Science.” Human Studies11, no.2–3: 99–116. 10.1007/BF00177300
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177300 [Google Scholar]
  36. Madrigal, Alexis
    2008 “Mars Phoenix Tweets: ‘We Have ICE!’” Wired. www.wired.com/2008/06/marsphoenix-tw/
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Roque, Georges
    2009 “What Is Visual in Visual Argumentation?” OSSA Conference Archive, 1391. scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&context=ossaarchive
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2012 “Visual Argumentation: A Further Reappraisal.” InTopical Themes in Argumentation Theory, Argumentation Library series vol. 22, ed.Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 273–88. Dordrecht: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4041‑9_18
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_18 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2015 “Should Visual Arguments Be Propositional in Order to Be Arguments?” Argumentation29, no.2: 177–95. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9341‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9341-3 [Google Scholar]
  40. Serafis, Dimitris, and A. Tseronis
    2023 “The Front Page as a Canvas for Multimodal Argumentation: Brexit in the Greek Press.” Frontiers in Communication81: 1–14. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1230632
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1230632 [Google Scholar]
  41. Smith, P. H., L. K. Tamppari, R. E. Arvidson, D. Bass, D. Blaney, W. V. Boynton, A. Carswell
    2009 “H2O at the Phoenix Landing Site.” Science325, no.5936: 58–61. 10.1126/science.1172339
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172339 [Google Scholar]
  42. Thomas, Martin
    2014 “Evidence and Circularity in Multimodal Discourse Analysis.” Visual Communication13, no.2: 163–89. 10.1177/1470357213516725
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357213516725 [Google Scholar]
  43. Uri, John.
    2022 “15 Years Ago: Phoenix Mars Lander Launches to the Red Planet.” Nasa. https://www.nasa.gov/history/15-years-ago-phoenix-mars-lander-launches-to-the-red-planet/
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23027.cso
Loading
Evaluating visual arguments in science
Journal of Argumentation in Context 14, 40 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.23027.cso
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23027.cso
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23027.cso
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argument assessment; Key-Component method; scientific visual argumentation; underdetermination; visual argumentation

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error