Construction and continuity: conceptual engineering without conceptual change
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The papers in this volume originated in a workshop on externalism and conceptual change held at the University of St. Andrews in June 2018.The discussion of conceptual change was driven largely by recent enthusiasm about 'conceptual engineering', and while a number of externalist views, and their consequences for the relation between conceptual engineering and conceptual change, were explored at the workshop, issues around 'temporal' externalism drew particular focus.For the temporal externalist, the semantic content of our current thoughts and utterances is grounded not only in our current (and past) usage, but also in how our usage develops in the future. 1 This extension of the grounding base for semantic facts will, of course, strike many as unintuitive. 2Nevertheless, it seems particularly well suited for a conception of philosophy which wishes to see itself as engaged in the process of conceptual engineering rather than mere conceptual analysis.After all, one way to distinguish engineering from analysis is that the former emphasizes the fact that we have a role in creating and improving our concepts while the latter suggests that we are primarily describing the concepts that we already happen to find ourselves with.The prospect of improving our concepts can obviously seem appealing, but for many philosophers some of that appeal is lost if it turns out that this improvement necessarily brings with it conceptual change.The philosophical exploration of a question (be it a philosophical chestnut like the nature of justice or a more contemporary topic like the nature of marriage) seems, after all, less interesting (though not necessarily
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it