@article {raey,
	title = {Regress Argument Reconstruction},
	journal = {Argumentation},
	volume = {26},
	number = {4},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {489-503},
	abstract = {<p>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 Ryles infinite regress argument against the view that knowledge-how requires knowledge-that. First, I demonstrate that Ryles 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.</p>},
	keywords = {Argument, Charity, Infinite regress, Interpretation, Reconstruction},
	issn = {0920-427X},
	doi = {10.1007/s10503-012-9264-9},
	author = {Wieland, Jan Willem}
}
