Page 307 - Lazar, Irena, Aleksander Panjek in Jonatan Vinkler. Ur. 2020. Mikro in makro. Pristopi in prispevki k humanističnim vedam ob dvajsetletnici UP Fakultete za humanistične študije, 2. knjiga. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem.
P. 307
reasoning and representation in “visual argumentation”
And this is how he frames it (again, all emphases throughout the text
that will follow are mine):
Consider a debate spurred by an unusual fruit I discovered during a
kayak ride on the Detroit River. When my description (“nothing I recognize;
a bumpy, yellow skin”) initiated a debate 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 bread-
fruit (Groarke 2013, 34–5).
And this is how Groarke reconstructs the argument (actually the pro-
cess of arriving from argument(s) to conclusion) in question (please, pay
special attention to the part that is emphasized):
The argument that established this conclusion compared my photo-
graphs to similar photographs found in encyclopaedia accounts of bread-
fruit. 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 reasoning – what convinces one of the
conclusion - is the seeing of the sets of photographs in question. Using a
variant of standard diagram techniques for argument analysis, we might
map the structure 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 (Groarke 2013, 36).
Let me expose and emphasize the main part of the quote, the part we
will be concentrating on, once more: “The actual reasoning ... is the seeing
of the sets of photographs in question”.
2.1 Argumentation as comparing the visuals
But, and this is a crucial question: could reasoning really be just seeing?
Should (and does) the reasoning really consist just of “the seeing of the sets
of photographs in question”? Is just seeing and visually comparing photo-
graphs from different sources really enough for a reasoned, justified con-
clusion (in question)? And last but not least, let us not overlook Groarke’s
remark that “on the basis of these photographs, the fruit was quickly iden-
683
And this is how he frames it (again, all emphases throughout the text
that will follow are mine):
Consider a debate spurred by an unusual fruit I discovered during a
kayak ride on the Detroit River. When my description (“nothing I recognize;
a bumpy, yellow skin”) initiated a debate 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 bread-
fruit (Groarke 2013, 34–5).
And this is how Groarke reconstructs the argument (actually the pro-
cess of arriving from argument(s) to conclusion) in question (please, pay
special attention to the part that is emphasized):
The argument that established this conclusion compared my photo-
graphs to similar photographs found in encyclopaedia accounts of bread-
fruit. 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 reasoning – what convinces one of the
conclusion - is the seeing of the sets of photographs in question. Using a
variant of standard diagram techniques for argument analysis, we might
map the structure 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 (Groarke 2013, 36).
Let me expose and emphasize the main part of the quote, the part we
will be concentrating on, once more: “The actual reasoning ... is the seeing
of the sets of photographs in question”.
2.1 Argumentation as comparing the visuals
But, and this is a crucial question: could reasoning really be just seeing?
Should (and does) the reasoning really consist just of “the seeing of the sets
of photographs in question”? Is just seeing and visually comparing photo-
graphs from different sources really enough for a reasoned, justified con-
clusion (in question)? And last but not least, let us not overlook Groarke’s
remark that “on the basis of these photographs, the fruit was quickly iden-
683
