Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Regress argument reconstruction

Jan Willem Wieland UGent (2012) ARGUMENTATION. 26(4). p.489-503
abstract
If an argument can be reconstructed in at least two different ways, then which reconstruction is to be preferred? In this paper I address this problem of argument reconstruction in terms of Ryle’s infinite regress argument against the view that knowledge-how requires knowledge-that. First, I demonstrate that Ryle’s initial statement of the argument does not fix its reconstruction as it admits two, structurally different reconstructions. On the basis of this case and infinite regress arguments generally, I defend a revisionary take on argument reconstruction: argument reconstruction is mainly to be ruled by charity (viz. by general criteria which arguments have to fulfil in order to be good arguments) rather than interpretation.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
infinite regress, charity, interpretation, reconstruction, argument, INFINITE REGRESSES
journal title
ARGUMENTATION
Argumentation
volume
26
issue
4
pages
489 - 503
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000310081200004
JCR category
LINGUISTICS
JCR impact factor
0.717 (2012)
JCR rank
60/158 (2012)
JCR quartile
2 (2012)
ISSN
0920-427X
DOI
10.1007/s10503-012-9264-9
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
2154372
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-2154372
date created
2012-06-14 20:32:07
date last changed
2014-04-18 08:58:08
@article{2154372,
  abstract     = {If an argument can be reconstructed in at least two different ways, then which reconstruction is to be preferred? In this paper I address this problem of argument reconstruction in terms of Ryle{\textquoteright}s infinite regress argument against the view that knowledge-how requires knowledge-that. First, I demonstrate that Ryle{\textquoteright}s initial statement of the argument does not fix its reconstruction as it admits two, structurally different reconstructions. On the basis of this case and infinite regress arguments generally, I defend a revisionary take on argument reconstruction: argument reconstruction is mainly to be ruled by charity (viz. by general criteria which arguments have to fulfil in order to be good arguments) rather than interpretation.},
  author       = {Wieland, Jan Willem},
  issn         = {0920-427X},
  journal      = {ARGUMENTATION},
  keyword      = {infinite regress,charity,interpretation,reconstruction,argument,INFINITE REGRESSES},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {4},
  pages        = {489--503},
  title        = {Regress argument reconstruction},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9264-9},
  volume       = {26},
  year         = {2012},
}

Chicago
Wieland, Jan Willem. 2012. “Regress Argument Reconstruction.” Argumentation 26 (4): 489–503.
APA
Wieland, J. W. (2012). Regress argument reconstruction. ARGUMENTATION, 26(4), 489–503.
Vancouver
1.
Wieland JW. Regress argument reconstruction. ARGUMENTATION. 2012;26(4):489–503.
MLA
Wieland, Jan Willem. “Regress Argument Reconstruction.” ARGUMENTATION 26.4 (2012): 489–503. Print.