Will social scientists' never-ending disputes over words ever end?

Social science literatures are rife with disputes over their key words. I show that they tend to conflate two activities. One of them I call word goes first! It concerns word uses and how to appraise them. The other I call distinction goes first! It concerns distinctions and classifications and how to appraise them. For each activity, social science communities should get clear on what to do, what to circumvent, and what's at stake. I argue that both are practical reason activities. They should be partly driven by the common good, justice, and equality.

Automated summary

The social science literature is filled with disputes over key terms, which can be divided into two activities: evaluating word usage and evaluating distinctions and classifications. It is important for social science communities to clarify what actions to take, what to avoid, and what is at stake in each activity. These activities should be driven by considerations of the common good, justice, and equality.