Argumentation theorists typically think of arguments as verbal exchanges. However, there is an increasing move to consider diagrams and other visual devices in argumentation. A leading figure in this movement is Leo Groarke, who uses the approach to argumentation developed by van Eeemeren and Grootendorst. Dr. Brendan Larvor (University of Hertfordshire) What philosophy of mathematical practice can teach pragma-dialectical theory about diagrams and pictures 2 November 2011 Argumentation theorists typically think of arguments as verbal exchanges. However, there is an increasing move to consider diagrams and other visual devices in argumentation. A leading figure in this movement is Leo Groarke, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,34],"tags":[18],"class_list":["post-76","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-events-publications","category-research-seminars","tag-seminar"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/philosophy\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/philosophy\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/philosophy\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/philosophy\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/philosophy\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=76"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/philosophy\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":78,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/philosophy\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76\/revisions\/78"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/philosophy\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=76"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/philosophy\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=76"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/philosophy\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=76"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nIn this paper, I argue using mathematical examples that this approach fails. In fact, it excludes the very possibility of visual argumentation properly so called. I offer a diagnosis, and suggest that the approach to argument pioneered by C.S. Peirce offers a way forward that does justice to visual argumentation and satisfies the broad aims of the movement for the study of argumentation. The full paper is available at: http:\/\/herts.academia.edu\/BrendanLarvor\/Papers\/803187<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"