What is conceptual engineering good for? The argument from nameability

Bibliographic Data

ID10351555
AuthorsKoch (0000-0002-9360-799X, Abteilung Philosophie Universität Bielefeld Bielefeld Germany), Gary Lupyan (0000-0001-8441-7433, Department of Psychology University of Wisconsin‐Madison Madison Wisconsin USA)
Year2024
Volume110
Issue2
Pages403-420
Publication date2024-09-15
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePhilosophy and Phenomenological Research (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0031-8205 • E-ISSN: 1933-1592
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/phpr.13110
OpenAlexW4403323690
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited54

It is often assumed that how we talk about the world matters a great deal. This is one reason why conceptual engineers seek to improve our linguistic practices by advocating novel uses of our words, or by inventing new ones altogether. A core idea shared by conceptual engineers is that by changing our language in this way, we can reap all sorts of cognitive and practical benefits, such as improving our theorizing, combating hermeneutical injustice, or promoting social emancipation. But how do changes at the linguistic level translate into any of these worthwhile benefits? In this paper, we propose the nameability account as a novel answer to this question. More specifically, we argue that what linguistic resources are readily available to us directly affects our cognitive performance on various categorization‐related tasks. Consequently, our performance on such tasks can be improved by making controlled changes to our linguistic resources. We argue that this account supports and extends recent motivations for conceptual engineering, as categorization plays an important role in both theoretical and practical contexts

Argument (complex analysis · Epistemology · Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Philosophy · Semantic Web and Ontologies

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access