Conceptual engineering and conceptual change. An argument for the learnability of ameliorated concepts

I argue that conceptual engineers should consider the learnability of concepts in their designs. At least some conceptual engineers design for implementation of their ameliorated concepts. Implementing a concept is making the concept permanent in a society in the long run. The permanence of a concept in a society requires institutional learning of that concept. Engineering for implementation is therefore engineering for institutional learning. A view on learning can be helpful in the design process because it brings conceptual problems from the point of view of semantic internalism back into play. I show four key implications from the learning sciences for conceptual engineering. These implications concern adequacy criteria of engineered concepts, conceptual prevalence, the normativity of concepts, and empirical evidence on specific concepts. They can be a start for an extensive interdisciplinary exchange between the learning sciences and conceptual engineering in the future.

Automated summary

Conceptual engineers should consider the learnability of concepts in their designs, as implementing a concept requires institutional learning in society. The learning sciences have four key implications for conceptual engineering, including adequacy criteria, conceptual prevalence, the normativity of concepts, and empirical evidence, which are significant for future interdisciplinary exchanges between the learning sciences and conceptual engineering.