Conceptual Engineering and Some Methodological Challenges

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

1 Faculty of Humanities, Khatam University. Tehran. Iran

2 Faculty of Literature and Humanities. Shahid Beheshti. Tehran. Iran

10.48308/kj.2025.240849.1340

Abstract

In recent years, analytic philosophy has faced various methodological challenges. The present paper begins by discussing two of these challenges, both of which question central methods of analytic philosophy—namely, the method of linguistic analysis and the method of thought experiments. The paper then introduces conceptual engineering as an emerging methodology designed to address these methodological concerns. After outlining the general framework of this approach, we examine its responses to the two aforementioned challenges and defend their plausibility. In addition, we present two novel ideas regarding conceptual engineering. The first is a comprehensive five-stage model that maps the relationship between conceptual engineering and relevant fields such as linguistics and experimental philosophy. The second is a new response to the challenge posed to the use of thought experiments, one that avoids the criticisms raised against existing responses. In this way, the paper not only introduces the literature on conceptual engineering in Persian for the first time but also advances it by offering original contributions.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Appiah, A. (1992). In my father’s house: Africa in the philosophy of culture. USA: Oxford University Press.
Blackburn, S. (1999). Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Buckwalter, W., & Stich, S. (2014). Gender and Philosophical Intuition in Experimental Philosophy (Vol. 2, pp. 307–346). Joshua Knobe and Shaun Nichols (Eds). New York: Oxford University Press. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1966324
Burgess, A., Cappelen, H., & Plunkett, D. (2020). Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Cappelen, H. (2017). Why Philosophers Shouldn’t Do Semantics. Review of Philosophy and Psychology (8)4, 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-017-0340-9
Cappelen, H. (2018). Fixing language: An essay on conceptual engineering. Oxford University Press.
Carnap, R. (1950). The Logical Foundations of Probability. University of Chicago Press
Chalmers, D. J. (2020). What Is Conceptual Engineering And What Should It Be?. Inquiry, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1817141
Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The Extended Mind. Analysis (58)1, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7
Deutsch, M. (2020). Speaker’s Reference, Stipulation, And A Dilemma For Conceptual Engineers. Philosophical Studies (177)12, 3935-3957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01416-z
Devitt, M. (2005). Ignorance of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eklund, M. (2015). Intuitions, Conceptual Engineering, and Conceptual Fixed Points. In The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophical Methods (pp. 363-385). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137344557_15
Feltz, A. & Cokely, E.T. (2009). Do Judgments About Freedom and Responsibility Depend on Who You Are? Personality Differences in Intuitions About Compatibilism and Incompatibilism, Consciousness and Cognition (18)1, 342–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.08.001
Gettier, E. L. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge?. Analysis 23(6), 121-123. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/23.6.121
Greenough, P. (2020). Neutralism And Conceptual Engineering. In Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics (pp. 205-229). Burgess, A., Cappelen, H., & Plunkett, D. (Eds). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198801856.003.0011
Haslanger, S. (2000). Gender and Race: (what) are they? (what) do we want them to be?. Noûs (34)1, 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.00201
Haslanger, S. (2020). Going On, Not in the Same Way. In Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics (pp. 230-260). Burgess, A., Cappelen, H., & Plunkett, D. (Eds). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198801856.003.0012
Isaac, M. G. (2021). What Should Conceptual Engineering Be All About?. Philosophia, (49)5, 2053-2065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-021-00367-x
Isaac, M. G., Koch, S., & Nefdt, R. (2022). Conceptual engineering: A Road Map to Practice. Philosophy Compass (17)10, e12879. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12879
Khalaj, M. H. M. (2025). A (Moderate) Skill-Based Defense of the Expertise Defense. Philosophical Psychology 38(6), 2788-2818. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2024.2347426
Knobe, J. & Nichols, S. (2017). Experimental Philosophy. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zallta (Eds). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/experimental-philosophy/
 Koch, S. (2021). The Externalist Challenge to Conceptual Engineering. Synthese (198)1, 327-348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02007-6
Ludwig, K. (2007). The Epistemology Of Thought Experiments: First Person Versus Third Person Approaches. Midwest Studies in Philosophy (31)1, 128–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.2007.00160.x
Machery, E. (2017). Philosophy Within Its Proper Bounds. Oxford University Press.
Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S., & Stich, S. P. (2004). Semantics, cross-cultural style. Cognition (92)3, B1–B12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.003
Nado, J. (2021). Conceptual Engineering via Experimental Philosophy. Inquiry (64)1-2, 76-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2019.1667870
Nagel, T. (1974). What Is It Like To Be A Bat?. The Philosophical Review 83, 435-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914
Nefdt, R. M. (2024). Concepts and Conceptual Engineering: Answering Cappelen’s Challenge. Inquiry (67)1, 400-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2021.1926316
Putnam, H. (1975). The Meaning of “Meaning.” In Language, mind, and knowledge, K. Gunderson (Ed.). University of Minnesota Press.
Railton, P. (1993). Noncognitivism about Rationality: Benefits, Costs, and an Alternative. Philosophical Issues 4, 36-51. https://doi.org/10.2307/1522825
Russell, B. (1905). On Denoting. Mind (14)56, 479-493. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
Scharp, K. (2013). Replacing truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schwitzgebel, E., & Cushman, F. (2015). Philosophers’ biased judgments persist despite training, expertise and reflection. Cognition 141, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.015
Simion, M., & Kelp, C. (2020). Conceptual innovation, function first. Noûs (54)4, 985-1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12302
Sosa, E. (2009). A Defense of the Use Of Intuitions in Philosophy. In Stich and His Critics, M. Bishop & D. Murphy (Eds.) (pp. 101–112). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444308709.ch6
Strawson, P. F. (1963). Carnap’s Views on Conceptual Systems Versus Natural Languages in Analytic Philosophy. In The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap (pp. 503–518). Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.). Open Court.
Thomasson, A (2020). A Pragmatic Method for Normative Conceptual Work. In Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics (pp. 435–58). Burgess, A., Cappelen, H., & Plunkett, D. (Eds). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198801856.003.0021
Tobia, K., Buckwalter, W., & Stich, S. (2013). Moral intuitions: Are philosophers experts? Philosophical Psychology (26)5, 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2012.696327
Vaesen, K., Peterson, M., & Van Bezooijen, B. (2013). The Reliability of Armchair Intuitions. Metaphilosophy (44)5, 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12060
Weinberg, J., Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2001). Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions. Philosophical Topics (29)1/2, 429–460. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics2001291/217
Williamson, T. (2008). The Philosophy of Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons.
Williamson, T. (2011). Philosophical Expertise and the Burden of Proof. Metaphilosophy (42)3, 215-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2011.01685.x
Williamson, T. (2016). Philosophical Criticisms of Experimental Philosophy. In A Companion to Experimental Philosophy (pp. 22–36). J. Sytsma & W. Buckwalter (Eds.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 26 July 2025
  • Revise Date: 15 August 2025
  • Accept Date: 29 August 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics