Downplaying the change of subject objection to conceptual engineering

Abstract

Conceptual engineering projects have been criticized for creating discontinuities of subject-matter and, as a result, discontinuities in inquiries: call this the Change of Subject objection. In this paper, I explore a way of dealing with the objection that clarifies its scope and eventually downplays it. First, two strategies aimed at saving subject-continuity are examined and found wanting: Herman Cappelen's appeal to topics, and the account in terms of concept function. Second, the idea is introduced that one can begin an object-level inquiry either with a 'semantically conservative' approach, whereby semantic change is not permitted, or with a 'semantically progressive' approach, whereby semantic change is permitted. This distinction helps one significantly downplay the Change of Subject objection.

Three Approaches to Logical Correctness

“…The conceptual engineer has a number of replies to the change of subject objection, three are presented here. See (Belleri, 2021) for a more detailed discussion of the various historic and prospective replies to the objection by conceptual engineers. Each reply has a natural counterpart for the Neo-Carnapian.…”

What makes a good theory, and how do we make a theory good?

“…These all constitute examples of ongoing theoretical work, likely earnest attempts to enhance transparency -and could be accommodated under the heading of conceptual engineering (cf. Belleri, 2021;Chalmers, 2020;Kitsik, 2022;Sawyer, 2021).…”

How words matter: A psycholinguistic argument for meaning revision

“…Cappelen (2018, 2020) argues that words have lexical effects beyond their semantic and pragmatic effects, and that preserving these effects may provide a reason to prefer revision over introduction and replacement (see also Landes, forthcoming). Others argue that certain cases of meaning change can preserve topic continuity (e.g., Belleri, 2021; Cappelen, 2018; Flocke, 2021; Knoll, 2021), and that preserving lexical continuity can help demonstrate that the ameliorated meaning remains connected to ongoing conversations related to the original word (Cappelen, 2020, p. 144).…”

“…Cappelen (2018Cappelen ( , 2020 argues that words have lexical effects beyond their semantic and pragmatic effects, and that preserving these effects may provide a reason to prefer revision over introduction and replacement (see also Landes, forthcoming). Others argue that certain cases of meaning change can preserve topic continuity (e.g., Belleri, 2021;Cappelen, 2018;Flocke, 2021;Knoll, 2021), and that preserving lexical continuity can help 1 Some recent examples: Haslanger (2000) suggests changing our use of "woman" to refer to (roughly) systematically oppressed female persons; Dembroff (2016) suggests using "sexual orientation" to refer to a person's sexual preferences without mention of their own sex or gender; Manne (2017) suggests using "misogyny" to refer to hostile social forces faced by girls and women that serve to enforce a patriarchal order; Fassio and McKenna (2015) suggest using "knowledge" to refer to an epistemic state of stake-sensitive invariantism.…”