Abstract
Bad maps misrepresent and mislead. They hide important truths and misdirect our attention. Often, they are self‑serving, promoting the values of their makers. But it is not easy to delineate what counts as a good map. Even ‘good’ maps that are useful, illuminating, and accurate according to their representational conventions can still mislead us, hide important patterns, and distort our understanding. In constructing a map, we necessarily balance at least three sorts of epistemic risks, which I name aesthetic risks, categorization risks, and simplification risks. Balancing these risks is always a value‑laden process. Maps that employ an ‘aesthetics of neutrality’ can be distinctively misleading by hiding their own value‑laden perspective under an aesthetic veneer of scientific objectivity.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
