Five dogmas of logic diagrams and how to escape them.

In the vein of a renewed interest in diagrammatic reasoning, this paper challenges an opposition between logic diagrams and formal languages that has traditionally been the common view in philosophy of logic and linguistics. We examine, from a philosophical point of view, what we call five dogmas of logic diagrams. These are as follows: (1) diagrams are non-linguistic; (2) diagrams are visual representations; (3) diagrams are iconic, and not symbolic; (4) diagrams are non-linear; (5) diagrams are heterogenous, and not homogenous. Using historical examples, we argue that none of these dogmas is an adequate criterion to distinguish logic diagrams from formal languages. Instead, we advocate that there is a common core between linguistic and diagrammatic representation and reasoning. • We critically examine, from a philosophical point of view, five dogmas in current research on logic diagrams that have been proposed as criteria to establish an opposition between formal language and logic diagrams. • The dogmas we consider are: (1) diagrams are non-linguistic ; (2) diagrams are visual representations; (3) diagrams are iconic , and not symbolic ; (4) diagrams are non-linear; (5) diagrams are heterogenous , and not homogenous. • We present historical examples which are not met by these criteria. • We provide a positive outlook by arguing that there is a common core between linguistic and diagrammatic representation and reasoning, which can be called 'invariance'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]