Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorIsaac, Manuel
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-20T10:30:01Z
dc.date.available2021-09-20T10:30:01Z
dc.date.issued2021-09-17
dc.identifier275627216
dc.identifier3a8c4fa6-206d-4ad7-a899-861056699702
dc.identifier85115116789
dc.identifier000696784700002
dc.identifier.citationIsaac , M 2021 , ' Which concept of concept for conceptual engineering? ' , Erkenntnis , vol. First Online . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-021-00447-0en
dc.identifier.issn0165-0106
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-5479-5027/work/100549780
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/23990
dc.descriptionResearch for this article was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, grant number P400PG_183807.en
dc.description.abstractConceptual engineering is the method for assessing and improving our concepts. However, little has been written about how best to conceive of concepts for the purposes of conceptual engineering. In this paper, I aim to fill this foundational gap, proceeding in three main steps: First, I propose a methodological framework for evaluating the conduciveness of a given concept of concept for conceptual engineering. Then, I develop a typology that contrasts two competing concepts of concept that can be used in conceptual engineering—namely, the philosophical and psychological ones. Finally, I evaluate these two concepts of concept using the proposed methodological framework and I show that, when it comes to making conceptual engineering an actionable method, the psychological concept of concept outclasses its philosophical counterpart on all counts. This provides a baseline from which the concept of concept can be further improved for the purposes of conceptual engineering.
dc.format.extent25
dc.format.extent754606
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofErkenntnisen
dc.subjectB Philosophy (General)en
dc.subjectT-NDASen
dc.subject.lccB1en
dc.titleWhich concept of concept for conceptual engineering?en
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Philosophyen
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10670-021-00447-0
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record