Don't count truth out just yet: a response to Isaac

Paul-Mikhail Catapang Podosky

doi:10.1080/0020174X.2022.2075922

Don't count truth out just yet: a response to Isaac

Paul-Mikhail Catapang Podosky^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Number of pages	11
Journal	Inquiry
Early online date	19 May 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2022.2075922
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 19 May 2022

Keywords

conceptual engineering
ideology
representationalism
social constructionism

Access to Document

10.1080/0020174X.2022.2075922

Cite this

@article{942f1d7345e14eaba5f01a63dc3abc74,

title = "Don't count truth out just yet: a response to Isaac",

abstract = "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 {\textquoteleft}Should{\textquoteright} 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.",

keywords = "conceptual engineering, ideology, representationalism, social constructionism",

author = "Podosky, {Paul-Mikhail Catapang}",

year = "2022",

month = may,

day = "19",

doi = "10.1080/0020174X.2022.2075922",

language = "English",

journal = "Inquiry",

issn = "0020-174X",

publisher = "Taylor & Francis",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Don't count truth out just yet

T2 - a response to Isaac

AU - Podosky, Paul-Mikhail Catapang

PY - 2022/5/19

Y1 - 2022/5/19

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - conceptual engineering

KW - ideology

KW - representationalism

KW - social constructionism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85131064657&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/0020174X.2022.2075922

DO - 10.1080/0020174X.2022.2075922

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85131064657

SN - 0020-174X

JO - Inquiry

JF - Inquiry

ER -

Don't count truth out just yet: a response to Isaac

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this