Epistemic Paternalism via Conceptual Engineering

Kitsik, Eve

doi:10.1017/apa.2022.22

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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. Chalmers, 2020;Kitsik, 2022;Belleri, 2021;Sawyer, 2021).…”

Section: Discursive Survivalmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Makes a Good Theory, and How Do We Make a Theory Good?

Guest

2024

Comput Brain Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I present an ontology of criteria for evaluating theory to answer the titular question from the perspective of a scientist practitioner. Set inside a formal account of our adjudication over theories, a metatheoretical calculus, this ontology comprises the following: (a) metaphysical commitment, the need to highlight what parts of theory are not under investigation, but are assumed, asserted, or essential; (b) discursive survival, the ability to be understood by interested non-bad actors, to withstand scrutiny within the intended (sub)field(s), and to negotiate the dialectical landscape thereof; (c) empirical interface, the potential to explicate the relationship between theory and observation, i.e., how observations relate to, and affect, theory and vice versa; (d) minimising harm, the reckoning with how theory is forged in a fire of historical, if not ongoing, abuses—from past crimes against humanity, to current exploitation, turbocharged or hyped by machine learning, to historical and present internal academic marginalisation. This work hopes to serve as a possible beginning for scientists who want to examine the properties and characteristics of theories, to propose additional virtues and vices, and to engage in further dialogue. Finally, I appeal to practitioners to iterate frequently over such criteria, by building and sharing the metatheoretical calculi used to adjudicate over theories.

show abstract

Section: Discursive Survivalmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Makes a Good Theory, and How Do We Make a Theory Good?

Guest

2024

Comput Brain Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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).…”

Section: Discursive Survivalmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Guest¹

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I present an ontology of criteria for evaluating theory to answer the titular question from the perspective of a scientist practitioner. Set inside a formal account of our adjudication over theories, a metatheoretical calculus, this ontology comprises: a) Metaphysical commitment, the need to highlight what parts of theory are not under investigation, but are assumed, asserted, or essential. b) Discursive survival, the ability to be understood by interested non-bad actors, to withstand scrutiny within the intended (sub)field(s), and to negotiate the dialectical landscape thereof. c) Empirical interface, the potential to explicate the relationship between theory and observation, i.e., how observations relate to, and affect, theory and vice versa. d) Minimizing harm, the reckoning with how theory is forged in a fire of historical, if not ongoing, abuses — from past crimes against humanity, to current exploitation, turbocharged or hyped by machine learning, to historical and present internal academic marginalization. This work hopes to serve as a possible beginning for scientists who want to examine the properties and characteristics of theories, to propose additional virtues and vices, and to engage in further dialogue. Finally, I appeal to practitioners to iterate frequently over such criteria, by building and sharing the metatheoretical calculi used to adjudicate over theories.

show abstract

“…The final worry we shall consider, which also concerns the actual implementation of conceptual engineering projects, operates at the individual level and is distinctively ethical (Kitsik, forthcoming). When projects in conceptual engineering attempt to alter people's cognitive makeup, their execution may lead to the manipulation of persons through the intimate intrusion into private territory 26 .…”

Section: Ethical Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual engineering: A road map to practice

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the logical space of alternative conceptual engineering projects, with a specific focus on (1) the processes, (2) the targets and goals, and (3) the methods of such projects. We present an overview of how these three aspects interact in the contemporary literature and discuss those alternative projects that have yet to be explored based on our suggested typology. We show how choices about each element in a conceptual engineering project constrain the possibilities for the others, thereby giving rise to distinct groupings of possible projects under the banner of conceptual engineering. We conclude with a critical reflection on the potential ethical issues that arise as a result of effec tively putting conceptual engineering into practice.

show abstract

Epistemic Paternalism via Conceptual Engineering

Cited by 10 publications

References 38 publications

What Makes a Good Theory, and How Do We Make a Theory Good?

What Makes a Good Theory, and How Do We Make a Theory Good?

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

Conceptual engineering: A road map to practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About