Regress Argument Reconstruction

Argumentation 26 (4):489-503 (2012)
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 Infinite regress  Argument  Reconstruction  Charity  Interpretation
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,316
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
D. M. Armstrong (1974). Infinite Regress Arguments and the Problem of Universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 52 (3):191 – 201.
E. W. Beth (1952). Reviews. [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2 (8):159-160.
Romane Clark (1988). Vicious Infinite Regress Arguments. Philosophical Perspectives 2:369-380.
Timothy Joseph Day (1987). Infinite Regress Arguments. Philosophical Papers 16 (2):155-164.

View all 29 references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Yuri Cath (2013). Regarding a Regress. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (3):358-388.
Christopher Yeomans (2006). Thomas Reid and Some Regress Arguments. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 88 (1):54-81.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2012-03-01

Total downloads

50 ( #30,529 of 1,096,452 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

5 ( #44,086 of 1,096,452 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.