University of Hertfordshire

By the same authors

What Philosophy of Mathematical Practice Can Teach Argumentation Theory about Diagrams and Pictures

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Standard

What Philosophy of Mathematical Practice Can Teach Argumentation Theory about Diagrams and Pictures. / Larvor, B.

The Argument of Mathematics. ed. / Andrew Aberdein; Ian Dove. Springer, 2013. p. 239-253 (Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science; Vol. 30).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Harvard

Larvor, B 2013, What Philosophy of Mathematical Practice Can Teach Argumentation Theory about Diagrams and Pictures. in A Aberdein & I Dove (eds), The Argument of Mathematics. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, vol. 30, Springer, pp. 239-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6534-4_13

APA

Larvor, B. (2013). What Philosophy of Mathematical Practice Can Teach Argumentation Theory about Diagrams and Pictures. In A. Aberdein, & I. Dove (Eds.), The Argument of Mathematics (pp. 239-253). (Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science; Vol. 30). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6534-4_13

Vancouver

Larvor B. What Philosophy of Mathematical Practice Can Teach Argumentation Theory about Diagrams and Pictures. In Aberdein A, Dove I, editors, The Argument of Mathematics. Springer. 2013. p. 239-253. (Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6534-4_13

Author

Larvor, B. / What Philosophy of Mathematical Practice Can Teach Argumentation Theory about Diagrams and Pictures. The Argument of Mathematics. editor / Andrew Aberdein ; Ian Dove. Springer, 2013. pp. 239-253 (Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science).

Bibtex

@inbook{926a76107e4f424b9a7917d1c585c5f4,
title = "What Philosophy of Mathematical Practice Can Teach Argumentation Theory about Diagrams and Pictures",
abstract = "There has been a rising tide of interest among argumentation theorists in visual reasoning, most notably in the form of special editions of Argumentation and Advocacy in 1996 and 2007. In the hands of the leaders of this development, and particularly Birdsell and Groarke (1996, 2007), the effort has been to assimilate visual reasoning to verbal argumentation. At the same time, there is a more mature but still advancing literature on the use of diagrams in mathematical reasoning (e.g. Dove, 2002; Manders, 1995; Netz, 2003). There have been efforts to bring the two together (see in particular Kulpa, 2009; Sherry, 2009; Inglis and Mej{\'i}a-Ramos, 2009). In this paper, I wish to use the philosophy of mathematical practice to identify a severe limitation in the attempt to assimilate visual reasoning to verbal reasoning, and by extensionto criticise the approach to reasoning that treats all reasoning as if it were verbalreasoning.",
keywords = "Argumentation, Mathematics",
author = "B. Larvor",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1007/978-94-007-6534-4_13",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-94-007-6533-7",
series = "Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science",
publisher = "Springer",
pages = "239--253",
editor = "Andrew Aberdein and Ian Dove",
booktitle = "The Argument of Mathematics",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - What Philosophy of Mathematical Practice Can Teach Argumentation Theory about Diagrams and Pictures

AU - Larvor, B.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - There has been a rising tide of interest among argumentation theorists in visual reasoning, most notably in the form of special editions of Argumentation and Advocacy in 1996 and 2007. In the hands of the leaders of this development, and particularly Birdsell and Groarke (1996, 2007), the effort has been to assimilate visual reasoning to verbal argumentation. At the same time, there is a more mature but still advancing literature on the use of diagrams in mathematical reasoning (e.g. Dove, 2002; Manders, 1995; Netz, 2003). There have been efforts to bring the two together (see in particular Kulpa, 2009; Sherry, 2009; Inglis and Mejía-Ramos, 2009). In this paper, I wish to use the philosophy of mathematical practice to identify a severe limitation in the attempt to assimilate visual reasoning to verbal reasoning, and by extensionto criticise the approach to reasoning that treats all reasoning as if it were verbalreasoning.

AB - There has been a rising tide of interest among argumentation theorists in visual reasoning, most notably in the form of special editions of Argumentation and Advocacy in 1996 and 2007. In the hands of the leaders of this development, and particularly Birdsell and Groarke (1996, 2007), the effort has been to assimilate visual reasoning to verbal argumentation. At the same time, there is a more mature but still advancing literature on the use of diagrams in mathematical reasoning (e.g. Dove, 2002; Manders, 1995; Netz, 2003). There have been efforts to bring the two together (see in particular Kulpa, 2009; Sherry, 2009; Inglis and Mejía-Ramos, 2009). In this paper, I wish to use the philosophy of mathematical practice to identify a severe limitation in the attempt to assimilate visual reasoning to verbal reasoning, and by extensionto criticise the approach to reasoning that treats all reasoning as if it were verbalreasoning.

KW - Argumentation

KW - Mathematics

U2 - 10.1007/978-94-007-6534-4_13

DO - 10.1007/978-94-007-6534-4_13

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-94-007-6533-7

T3 - Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science

SP - 239

EP - 253

BT - The Argument of Mathematics

A2 - Aberdein, Andrew

A2 - Dove, Ian

PB - Springer

ER -