I’ve recently noticed some interesting examples of “argument infographics” – graphics designed to convey complex arguments to wide audiences in accessible and attractive manner. Here are two:
(Click the thumbnails to see full-size versions.)
The purist in me wants to say that these are argument infographics rather than argument maps, properly-so-called. An argument map displays the logical (evidential, inferential) relationships among components in a complex argument, typically using box-and-arrow format. The relationships displayed with boxes-and-arrows in these infographics are not always logical in this sense.
This is easiest to see in the Seven Good Reasons infographic (on the right, above), where arrows between boxes simply indicate order or progression (first this argument, then this one…). There is no logical coherence in the linking of one argument to the next.
Still, if these argument infographics are effective in helping people understand the arguments, then they’re a good thing. And if there is a trend towards the visual display of complex argument – even if in a “merely” infographical way – then that’s a good thing too.
Indeed it is possible that a well-crafted argument infographic may be a better way to communicate complex arguments than a true argument map, the virtues of which may not be apparent to the general reader.
Tim van Gelder 
Tim: I stumbled on this while pursuing something else, and it got me to thinking, so here are some thoughts about your post.
You write: ‘There is no logical coherence in the linking of one argument to the next.” And I agree. The arrows do not represent any kind of logical flow.
You write: “Still, if these argument infographics are effective in helping people understand the arguments, then they’re a good thing.”
But, I want to say, that is a huge ‘if’–for if the infographic fails to represent, or–as I am inclined to think–misrepresents–the structure of the argument, how could it help people to understand arguments? I mean, it might do so–accidentally–but just making them concerntrate more. But It could hardly
be an effective agent of improving one”s grasp of an argument, it seems to me.
You write: And if there is a trend towards the visual display of complex argument – even if in a “merely” infographical way – then that’s a good thing too.
Here again I am much less sanguine about the goodness of this. It seems to me it might create the impression that one grasps something that one does not grasp at all: viz. the logical structure of the argument,
You write: “Still, if these argument infographics are effective in helping people understand the arguments, then they’re a good thing.”
But, I want to say, that is a huge ‘if’–for if the infographic fails to represent, or–as I am inclined to think–misrepresents–the structure of the argument, how could it help people to understand arguments? I mean, it might do so–accidentally–but just making them concerntrate more. But It could hardly
be an effective agent of improving one”s grasp of an argument, it seems to me.
You write: And if there is a trend towards the visual display of complex argument – even if in a “merely” infographical way – then that’s a good thing too.
Here again I am much less sanguine about the goodness of this. It seems to me it might create the impression that one grasps something that one does not grasp at all: viz. the logical structure of the argument,
The carbon tax graphic contains hidden assumptions (like most of the popular discourse on the topic of carbon emissions): the climate is changing for the worse; our carbon emissions are causing the change; a carbon tax will reduce carbon emissions…etc. An argument map would have brought those out.
So I disagree that a well-crafted infographic communicated complex arguments better than an argument map. If anything, argument infographics make it easier for lobby groups to hide assumptions and spread bad thinking.
We absorb all arguments sequentially by necessity. Most arguments are delivered as spoken words or sequential text. So the sequential presentation in the right hand graphic corresponds to how most arguments are delivered, whether they are good or bad. My question would be whether the right hand graphic contains a coherent argument. As Ian has pointed out, clearly it does not.