Abstract

Paradigm cases of conceptual engineering involve topic preservation through semantic change. The challenge (known as Strawson’s challenge) is to explain how this is possible. In previous work, I have responded to the challenge by advocating an externalist metasemantic framework that distinguishes the linguistic meaning of a term from the concept the term expresses. In this paper I expand on my earlier claims. I argue that the topics of interest to conceptual engineers are underpinned by objective properties and that in conceptual engineering we aim for truth. I then go on to argue against the proposals by Herman Cappelen and by Derek Ball.