Terminological Takeover

Clicks: 5
ID: 324674
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #30 of 48 articles by views in journal of pharmaceutical analysis

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Philosophers introduce terms to express concepts in service of particular motivations. When a theorist argues that an existing term should express a different concept instead, this constitutes a terminological takeover. I argue that when a term has been stipulatively introduced, the original motivation constrains what can permissibly be done with it going forward. A takeover is impermissible when the challenger’s reasons are insensitive to that motivation. This illuminates a limit on legitimate philosophical argumentation, a principled account of impermissible topic change, and a distinctive constraint on conceptual engineering.
Reference Key
openalex_W7202156116 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Paul‐Mikhail Catapang Podosky
Journal journal of pharmaceutical analysis
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/analys/anag063
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anag063
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.