¿Existen los argumentos visuales? Sobre el uso de fotografías en la argumentación jurídica

  1. Pablo Raúl Bonorino 1
  1. 1 Universidade de Vigo
    info

    Universidade de Vigo

    Vigo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05rdf8595

Revista:
Doxa: Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho

ISSN: 0214-8676,  2386-4702

Ano de publicación: 2023

Número: 47

Páxinas: 45-72

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.14198/DOXA2023.47.3 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openRUA editor

Outras publicacións en: Doxa: Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho

Resumo

This paper analyses a recent discussion on the nature of visual arguments in which a court ruling –in which the only evidence was a photograph (People v Doggett, California, 1948)– was used as a test case. We reconstruct the court argumentation more thoroughly and rigorously to point out the problems of the two competing conceptions, and to argue that the case shows that – contrary to the claims of the protagonists in the discussion – there is no such thing as a visual argument. The theoretical assumptions mobilized by photographs in the sentence are then examined to carry out a first non-systematic approach to the issues that a general conception of the use of images in legal argumentation should address. The test case assumed that photographs enter the argumentation as statements about their propositional content (meaning) and in the decision-making process as the objects on which the truth of those statements depends (evidence). Also, there is a relationship between the different ways a photograph communicates its meaning (to show p, to represent p and to suggest p) and its evidential force. In order to make sense of the different evidential assessments they make in the ruling, it was necessary to explore the theoretical position that would justify the distinctions on which they are based, as well as the understanding of visual perception that they presuppose. If one accepts the inferential nature of the process of seeing something when looking at a photograph, judges could be required to make some of these arguments explicit when justifying their decisions.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alcolea-Banegas, J. (2009). «Visual arguments in film», Argumentation, 23 (2), 259-275. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-008-9124-9.
  • Blair, J. A. (2012a). «The possibility and actuality of visual arguments», in Blair, J. Anthony, Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation. Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair, Dordrecht, Springer, 205-227. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_16.
  • Blair, J. A. (2012b). «The rhetoric of visual arguments», en Blair, J. Anthony, Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation. Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair, Dordrecht, Springer, 261279. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_19.
  • Blair, J. A. (2015). «Probative norms por multimodal visual arguments», Argumentation, 29, 217-233. DOI 10.1007/s10503-014-9333-3.
  • Brown, J. R., (1997). «Proofs and pictures», British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48 (2), 161-180.
  • Carruthers, P. (2017). «The Illusion of conscious thought» Journal of Consciousness Studies, 24 (9-10), 228-252.
  • Cruz Parcero, J. A. y Laudan, L. (eds.) (2010), Prueba y estándares de prueba en el derecho, México, UNAM.
  • Dove, I. J. (2002). «Can pictures prove?», Logique et Analyse, (179-180), 309-340.
  • Dove, I. J. (2012). «On images as evidence and arguments», en Frans Van Eemeren y Bart Garssen (eds), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Twenty Exploratory Studies, Dordrecht, Springer, 223-238. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_15.
  • Eco, U. (1991). Tratado de semiótica general. Barcelona, Lumen.
  • Eisenman, S. (2007). The Abu Ghraib Effect, London, Reakrion Books.
  • Fleming, D. (1996). «Can pictures be arguments», Argumentative and Advocacy, 33 (1), 11-22.
  • Godden, D. (2017). «On the norms of visual argument: A case for a normative non-revisionism», Argumentation, 31 (2), 395-431. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9411-9.
  • Groarke, L. (1996). «Logic, art and argument», Informal Logic, 18 (2), 105-129.
  • Groarke, L. (2009). «Five theses on Toulmin and visual arguments», en Frans Van Eemeren y Bart Garssen (eds), Pondering on Problems of Argumentation. Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues, Dordrecht, Springer, 229-239. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_16.
  • Groarke, L. (2013). «On Dove, visual evidence and verbal repackaging», en Mohammed, D. & Lewinski, M. (eds.), Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10 th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, OSSA, 1-8.
  • Hariman, R. (2015). «Between confusion and boredom in the study of visual argumentation», Argumentation, 29, 239-242. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-015-9346-6.
  • Hariman, R. y J. L, Lucaites, The Public Image. Photography and Civic Spectatorship, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2016.
  • Hofstadter, D. y Sander, E. (2018). La analogía. El motor del pensamiento, Barcelona, Tusquets.
  • Hoven, P. van der (2012). «The narrator and the interpreter in visual and verbal argumentation», en Frans Van Eemeren y Bart Garssen (eds), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Twenty Exploratory Studies, Dordrecht, Springer, 257-271. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_17.
  • Johnson, R. H. (2005). «Why “visual arguments” aren’t arguments», en H. V. Hansen, C. Tindale, J. Anthony Blair, y R. H. Johnson (eds.), Informal Logic at 25, Windsor, University of Windsor, 6-17.
  • Kandel, E. R. (2013). La era del inconsciente. La exploración del inconsciente en el arte, la mente y el cerebro. Barcelona, Paidós.
  • Khatchadourian, H. (2011). Truth: Its Nature, Criteria and Conditions, Frankfurt, Ontos.
  • Kjeldsen, J. E. (2012). «Pictorial argumentation in advertising: Visual tropes and figures as a way of creating visual argumentation», en Frans Van Eemeren y Bart Garssen (eds), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Twenty Exploratory Studies, Dordrecht, Springer, 239-255. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_16.
  • Kjeldsen, J. E. (2015). «Where is visual argument», en Frans Van Eemeren y Bart Garssen (eds.), Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory, Heidelberg, Springer, 107117. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_8.
  • Kjeldsen, J. E. (2018). «Visual rhetorical argumentation», Semiotica, 220, 69-94. DOI:10.1515/ sem-2015-0136.
  • Leuenberger, C. (2013). «The rhetoric of maps: International law as a discursive tool in visual arguments», LEHR, 7 (1), 73-107. DOI: 10.1515/lehr-2013-0002.
  • Mnookin, J. (2014). «Semi-legibility and visual evidence: An initial exploration», Law, Culture and the Humanities, 10 (1), 43-65. DOI: 10.1177/1743872111435998.
  • Mnookin, J. y West, N. (2001). «Theaters of proof: Visual evidence and the law in Call Northside 777», Yale Journal of Law & Humanities, (13), 330-402. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.292095.
  • Mouser, J. E. y J. Philbin. (1957). «Photographic evidence: Is there a recognized basis for admissibility? », Hasting Law Journal, (8), 310-314.
  • Peirce, C. S. (1986). La ciencia de la semiótica. Buenos Aires, Nueva Visión.
  • Peirce, C. S. (1988). El hombre, un signo. El pragmatismo de Peirce, Barcelona, Crítica.
  • Roque, G. (2012). «Visual argumentation: A further repraisal», en Frans Van Eemeren y Bart Garssen (eds), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Twenty Exploratory Studies, Dordrecht, Springer, 273-288. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_18.
  • Roque, G. (2015). «Should visual arguments be propositional in order to be arguments?», Argumentation, 29, 177-195. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-014-9341-3.
  • Santibañez, C. (2018). «Arguing with images as extended cognition», Informal Logic, 38 (4), 531-549. DOI:10.22329/il.v38i4.5052.
  • Saussure, F. de (1991). Curso de lingüística general, Madrid, Akal.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet