Academic Bibliography

 Search 200 years of publications by Ghent University researchers.
Advanced search
1 file | 241.52 KB
Add to list
  1. Search results
  2. Regress argument reconstruction

Regress argument reconstruction

Jan Willem Wieland (UGent)
(2012) ARGUMENTATION. 26(4). p.489-503
Author
Organization
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.
Keywords
charity, infinite regress, interpretation, reconstruction, argument, INFINITE REGRESSES

Downloads

  • Download
    (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 241.52 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Wieland, Jan Willem. “Regress Argument Reconstruction.” ARGUMENTATION, vol. 26, no. 4, 2012, pp. 489–503, doi:10.1007/s10503-012-9264-9.
APA
Wieland, J. W. (2012). Regress argument reconstruction. ARGUMENTATION, 26(4), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9264-9
Chicago author-date
Wieland, Jan Willem. 2012. “Regress Argument Reconstruction.” ARGUMENTATION 26 (4): 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9264-9.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Wieland, Jan Willem. 2012. “Regress Argument Reconstruction.” ARGUMENTATION 26 (4): 489–503. doi:10.1007/s10503-012-9264-9.
Vancouver
1.
Wieland JW. Regress argument reconstruction. ARGUMENTATION. 2012;26(4):489–503.
IEEE
[1]
J. W. Wieland, “Regress argument reconstruction,” ARGUMENTATION, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 489–503, 2012.
@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’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.}},
  author       = {{Wieland, Jan Willem}},
  issn         = {{0920-427X}},
  journal      = {{ARGUMENTATION}},
  keywords     = {{charity,infinite regress,interpretation,reconstruction,argument,INFINITE REGRESSES}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{4}},
  pages        = {{489--503}},
  title        = {{Regress argument reconstruction}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9264-9}},
  volume       = {{26}},
  year         = {{2012}},
}
Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: