Don’t count truth out just yet
A response to Isaac
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21335406 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Paul-Mikhail Catapang Podosky (0000-0001-5636-416X, New York University Shanghai, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 69 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 1956-1966 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-21 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Inquiry (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0020-174X • E-ISSN: 1502-3923 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/0020174x.2022.2075922 |
| OpenAlex | W4280590770 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 13 |
This paper continues a debate on the normative limits of conceptual engineering. In particular, it responds to [Isaac, Manuel Gustavo. 2021. “Post-truth conceptual engineering.” Inquiry. doi:10.1080/0020174X.2021.1887758] claim, in response to [Simion, Mona. 2018a. “The ‘Should’ in Conceptual Engineering.” Inquiry 61(8): 914–928 and Podosky, Paul-Mikhail Catapang. 2018. “Ideology and Normativity: Constraints on Conceptual Engineering.” Inquiry. doi:10.1080/0020174X.2018.1562374], but in particular Podosky, that cognitive efficacy, rather than truth and knowledge, should be the normative standard by which we assess the legitimacy of a conceptual engineering project – at least for ideological concepts. I argue that Isaac has not done enough to show us that truth and knowledge are insignificant for the conceptual engineering of ideological concepts
Conceptual framework · Conceptual model · Epistemology · Ideology · Legitimacy · Normative · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies · Law · Philosophy · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
| Highly cited | No |
|---|