brycewang-stanford Conceptual Analysis & Method (mind-conceptual-analysis-and-method)
Analytic philosophy stands or falls on precise concepts and clean distinctions. Many disputes
dissolve once a term is disambiguated; many arguments fail because a key word shifts meaning between
premises. This skill sharpens the conceptual machinery and picks the method that fits the question, so
the argument from mind-thesis-and-argument rests on terms that bear weight.
When to trigger
- A key term is doing heavy lifting and may be ambiguous
- A reader said two parties are "talking past each other" or "equivocating"
- You rely on a thought experiment and need it to be clean and probative
- Choosing a method (conceptual analysis, cases, formal model, explication) for the question
Sharpen the concepts
- Define the central terms. State what you mean, precisely, on first use. Distinguish your sense from neighboring concepts it is easily confused with.
- Disambiguate before arguing. If a term has two readings, separate them and say which one each premise uses. Equivocation across premises is a classic invalidity (guard the load-bearing premise).
- Draw the distinction that does the work. Often the contribution is a distinction others ran together. Name it, motivate it, and show the puzzle it dissolves.
- Prize parsimony. Prefer the account with fewer primitives and fewer ad hoc clauses. If your theory needs an exception to dodge each counterexample, that is a cost, not a fix.
Use thought experiments well
- State the case minimally — only the features that drive the verdict; strip irrelevant detail.
- Make the elicited intuition explicit and say what it is evidence for.
- Pre-empt the "intuition isn't shared / is an artifact" objection (hand to
mind-objections-and-replies). - Watch for cases that prove too much — if your case also refutes claims you accept, it is broken.
Load-bearing term audit
Mark every term that appears in a premise, conclusion, or objection. For each, write: definition, contrast class, role in the argument, and what would break if the term were replaced by a neighbor. This exposes equivocation before a referee does. If a term is merely decorative, cut it; if it is load-bearing, define it early and reuse it consistently.
Choose the method
| Method | Use when… | Watch for |
|---|---|---|
| Conceptual analysis (necessary/sufficient conditions) | the question is what some concept is | counterexamples; over-fitting with clauses |
| Cases / intuition pumps | a verdict on a scenario adjudicates the theory | unshared or unstable intuitions |
| Explication / conceptual engineering | the folk concept is defective and needs revision | drift from what we cared about |
| Formal modeling | precision or consequence relations matter | opacity — pair with informal exposition |
| Reflective equilibrium | balancing principles against considered judgments | which way the adjustment should go |
Anti-patterns
- A key term left undefined while it shifts meaning between premises
- Piling ad hoc clauses onto a definition to dodge each counterexample (lost parsimony)
- A thought experiment overloaded with irrelevant detail, or one that proves too much
- Formalism with no informal gloss (a Mind paper should stay accessible)
- Conceptual engineering that quietly changes the subject
Output format
【Key terms】precise definitions + neighbors distinguished
【Crucial distinction】the one that does the work
【Method】analysis / cases / explication / formal / reflective equilibrium
【Thought experiment】minimal case + the intuition it licenses (if any)
【Parsimony check】primitives / ad hoc clauses minimized? [Y/N]
【Next】mind-structure-and-exposition
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— SEP/IEP for standard definitions; logic tools for formal work../../resources/official-source-map.md— Mind's expectation of accessible, informally-glossed technical work