Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 14:1 (2025) ► pp.40–60

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Evaluating visual arguments in science

A case study of the Mars Phoenix lander’s images

 | Budapest University of Technology and Economics
 | Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Published online: 17 April 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.23027.cso
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Overview of visual argumentation
    • 2.1Clashing views, changing problems
    • 2.2The problem of reconstruction in visual argumentation and the KC method
  • 3.Arguing scientific images
    • 3.1Connecting science and technology studies and visual argumentation
    • 3.2Reconstruction of the Mars Phoenix lander photo with the KC method
  • 4.Summary
  • Notes
  • References
References (43)
References
Aberdein, Andrew. 2017. “Virtuous Norms for Visual Arguers.” Argumentation 32, no. 1: 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aspeitia, Axel Arturo Barceló. 2012. “Words and Images in Argumentation.” Argumentation 26, no. 3: 355–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke. 1996. “Toward a Theory of Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy 33, no. 1: 1–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy 43, no. 3–4: 103–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blair, J. Anthony. 1996. “The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy 33, no. 1: 23–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. “The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments.” In Defining Visual Rhetorics, ed. C. A. Hill and M. Helmers, 41–61. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, repr. Abingdon: Routledge, 2009.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments.” Argumentation 29, no. 2: 217–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, James Robert. 1999. Philosophy of Mathematics: An Introduction to a World of Proofs and Pictures. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burri, Regula Valérie, and Joseph Dumit. 2008. “Social Studies of Scientific Imaging and Visualization.” In The 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Cain, Alan J. 2019. “Visual Thinking and Simplicity of Proof.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 377, no. 2140: 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Champagne, Marc, and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. 2020. “Why Images Cannot Be Arguments, But Moving Ones Might.” Argumentation 34, no. 2: 207–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison. 2007. Objectivity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dove, Ian. J. 2002. “Can Pictures Prove?” Logique et Analyse 45, no. 179–80: 309–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dove, Ian J. 2012. “On Images as Evidence and Arguments.” In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory, Argumentation Library series vol. 22, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 223–38. Dordrecht: Springer Nature. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fleming, David. 1996. “Can Pictures Be Arguments?” Argumentation and Advocacy 33, no. 1: 11–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groarke, Leo. 1996. “Logic, Art and Argument.” Informal Logic 18, no. 2–3: 105–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Toward a Pragma-dialectics of Visual Argument.” In Advances in Pragma-dialectics, ed. F. H. van Eemeren, 137–51. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Beyond Words: Two Dogmas of Informal Logic.” In Reason 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Going Multimodal: What Is a Mode of Arguing and Why Does It Matter?” Argumentation 29, no. 2: 135–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. “Depicting Visual Arguments: An ‘ART’ Approach.” In Informal Logic: A “Canadian” Approach to Argument, ed. Federico Puppo, 332–74. Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groarke, Leo, and G. Kišiček. 2016. “Compassion, Authority and Baby Talk: Prosody and Objectivity.” OSSA Conference Archive, 1151. [URL]
Heshmati, Bita, and Ewa Modrzejewska. 2023. “Book of Abstract, Multimodal Argumentation: Text, Image, Sound, and Gesture in Persuasive Communication.” University of Salzburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. “How We Argue about Images: Metavisual Disputes in Practice.” Journal of Argumentation in Context (in press).
Johnson, Ralph H. 2003. “Why ‘Visual Arguments’ Aren’t Arguments.” OSSA Conference Archive, 491. [URL]
Kemp, Martin. 1997. “Seeing and Picturing: Visual Representation in Twentieth-Century Science.” In Companion to Science in the Twentieth Century, ed. J. Krige and D. Pestre, 361–90. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidron, Ivy, and Tommy Dreyfus. 2014. “Proof Image.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 87, no. 3: 297–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, J. E. 2007. “Visual Argumentation in Scandinavian Political Advertising: A Cognitive, Contextual, and Reception-Oriented Approach.” Argumentation and Advocacy 43, no. 3–4: 124–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. “Pictorial Argumentation in Advertising: Visual Tropes and Figures as a Way of Creating Visual Argumentation.” In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory, Argumentation Library series vol. 22, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 239–55. Dordrecht: Springer Nature. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kjellman, Ulrika. 2019. “From Fact to Fantasy: Scientific Illustrations and Visual Representation in the Early Work of Gaston Bachman.” Journal of Documentation 75, no. 4: 709–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakdawalla, Emily. 2008a. “A Quick Update on Phoenix, Sol 50: Got Ice? Yes!” The Planetary Society. [URL][URL]
. 2008b. “Highlights of the Phoenix Sol 64 Press Conference.” The Planetary Society. [URL][URL]
. 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. [URL][URL]
. 2008d. “Phoenix Update, Sol 123: Press Briefing with Carbonates, Clays, and Snow!” The Planetary Society. [URL][URL]
Lynch, Michael, and Steve Woolgar. 1988. “Introduction: Sociological Orientations to Representational Practice in Science.” Human Studies 11, no. 2–3: 99–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Madrigal, Alexis. 2008. “Mars Phoenix Tweets: ‘We Have ICE!’” Wired. [URL]
Roque, Georges. 2009. “What Is Visual in Visual Argumentation?” OSSA Conference Archive, 1391. [URL]
. 2012. “Visual Argumentation: A Further Reappraisal.” In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory, Argumentation Library series vol. 22, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 273–88. Dordrecht: Springer Nature. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Should Visual Arguments Be Propositional in Order to Be Arguments?” Argumentation 29, no. 2: 177–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serafis, Dimitris, and A. Tseronis. 2023. “The Front Page as a Canvas for Multimodal Argumentation: Brexit in the Greek Press.” Frontiers in Communication 81: 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, P. H., L. K. Tamppari, R. E. Arvidson, D. Bass, D. Blaney, W. V. Boynton, A. Carswell et al. 2009. “H2O at the Phoenix Landing Site.” Science 325, no. 5936: 58–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, Martin. 2014. “Evidence and Circularity in Multimodal Discourse Analysis.” Visual Communication 13, no. 2: 163–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uri, John. 2022. “15 Years Ago: Phoenix Mars Lander Launches to the Red Planet.” Nasa. [URL]
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue