Synthese 195 (11):4865-4882 (2018)

Raamy Majeed
University of Auckland
Jackson argues that conceptual analysis plays a modest, albeit crucial, role in ‘serious metaphysics’: roughly, the project of demystifying phenomena we take to be mysterious by locating them in the natural world. This defence of conceptual analysis is associated with ‘the Canberra Plan’, a philosophical methodology that has its roots in the works of both Lewis :427–446, 1970, Australas J Philos 50:249–258, 1972) and Jackson. There is, however, a distinction to be drawn between conceptual analysis, as it is typically employed in the Canberra plan, and a version of it defended by Jackson himself. In this paper, I elucidate this distinction, and employ examples from the history of science to argue the use of the former, but not the latter, incurs certain problems of conceptual change. Moreover, I also argue neither can be used to undertake serious metaphysics—the former because of the aforementioned problems, and the latter due to the machinery it employs to solve them.
Keywords Canberra plan  Conceptual Analysis  Conditional Analysis  Conceptual Change  Best-deserver theories  Meta-Metaphysics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-017-1430-z
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,363
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications.David K. Lewis - 1972 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (3):249-258.
How to Define Theoretical Terms.David Lewis - 1970 - Journal of Philosophy 67 (13):427-446.
How to Speak of the Colors.Mark Johnston - 1992 - Philosophical Studies 68 (3):221-263.

View all 33 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Causation and the Canberra Plan.David Liebesman - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (2):232-242.
The Canberra Plan Neglects Ground.Ned Block - 2015 - In Terence Horgan, Marcelo Sabates & David Sosa (eds.), Qualia and Mental Causation in a Physical World: Themes from the Philosophy of Jaegwon Kim,. Cambridge University Press. pp. 105-133.
Platitudes in Mathematics.Thomas Donaldson - 2015 - Synthese 192 (6):1799-1820.
Introducing the Canberra Plan.David Braddon-Mitchell & Robert Nola - 2009 - In David Braddon-Mitchell & Robert Nola (eds.), Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism. MIT Press. pp. 1--20.
Concepts and Conceptual Analysis.Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (2):253-282.
Concepts, Analysis, Generics and the Canberra Plan.Mark Johnston & Sarah-Jane Leslie - 2012 - Philosophical Perspectives 26 (1):113-171.
Mathematics and Conceptual Analysis.Antony Eagle - 2008 - Synthese 161 (1):67–88.
Is Semantics in the Plan?Peter Menzies & Huw Price - 2009 - In David Braddon-Mitchell & Robert Nola (eds.), Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism. Cambridge: MIT Press. pp. 159--82.


Added to PP index

Total views
60 ( #176,399 of 2,445,391 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #232,475 of 2,445,391 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes