Words and Distinctions for the Common Good : Practical Reason in the Logic of Social Science

**How social scientists' disagreements about their key words and distinctions have been misconceived, and what to do about it**Social scientists do research on a variety of topics—gender, capitalism, populism, and race and ethnicity, among others. They make descriptive and explanatory claims about empathy, intelligence, neoliberalism, and power. They advise policymakers on diversity, digitalization, work, and religion. And yet, as Gabriel Abend points out in this provocative book, they can’t agree on what these things are and how to identify them. How to tell if something is a religion or a cult or a sect? What is empathy? What makes this society a capitalist one? Disputes of this sort arise again and again in the social sciences.Abend argues that these disagreements have been doubly misconceived. First, they conflate two questions: how a social science community should use its most important words, and what distinctions it should accept and work with. Second, there’s no fact of the matter about either. Instead, they’re practical reason questions for a community, which aim at epistemically and morally good outcomes. Abend calls on social science communities to work together on their words, distinctions, and classifications. They must make collective decisions about the uses of words, the acceptability of distinctions, and the criteria for assessing both. These decisions aren’t up to individual scholars; the community gets the last word. According to Abend, the common good, justice, and equality should play a significant role in the logic of scientific research.**Gabriel Abend** is professor of sociology at University of Lucerne and the author of __The Moral Background: An Inquiry into the History of Business Ethics__ (Princeton).

How social scientists' disagreements about their keywords and distinctions have been misconceived, and what to do aboutit Social scientists do research on a variety oftopics-gender, capitalism, populism, and race and ethnicity, amongothers. They make descriptive and explanatory claims about empathy,intelligence, neoliberalism, and power. They advise policymakers ondiversity, digitalization, work, and religion. And yet, as GabrielAbend points out in this provocative book, they can't agree on whatthese things are and how to identify them. How to tell if somethingis a religion or a cult or a sect? What is empathy? What makes thissociety a capitalist one? Disputes of this sort arise again andagain in the social sciences. Abend argues that these disagreementshave been doubly misconceived. First, they conflate two questions:how a social science community should use its most important words,and what distinctions it should accept and work with. Second,there's no fact of the matter about either. Instead, they'repractical reason questions for a community, which aim atepistemically and morally good outcomes. Abend calls on socialscience communities to work together on their words, distinctions,and classifications. They must make collective decisions about theuses of words, the acceptability of distinctions, and the criteriafor assessing both. These decisions aren't up to individualscholars; the community gets the last word. According to Abend, thecommon good, justice, and equality should play a significant rolein the logic of scientific research. Gabriel Abendis professor of sociology at University of Lucerne and the authorof The Moral Background: An Inquiry into the History ofBusiness Ethics (Princeton).

How social scientists' disagreements about their key words and distinctions have been misconceived, and what to do about it Social scientists do research on a variety of topics—gender, capitalism, populism, and race and ethnicity, among others. They make descriptive and explanatory claims about empathy, intelligence, neoliberalism, and power. They advise policymakers on diversity, digitalization, work, and religion. And yet, as Gabriel Abend points out in this provocative book, they can’t agree on what these things are and how to identify them. How to tell if something is a religion or a cult or a sect? What is empathy? What makes this society a capitalist one? Disputes of this sort arise again and again in the social sciences. Abend argues that these disagreements have been doubly misconceived. First, they conflate two questions: how a social science community should use its most important words, and what distinctions it should accept and work with. Second, there’s no fact of the matter about either. Instead, they’re practical reason questions for a community, which aim at epistemically and morally good outcomes. Abend calls on social science communities to work together on their words, distinctions, and classifications. They must make collective decisions about the uses of words, the acceptability of distinctions, and the criteria for assessing both. These decisions aren’t up to individual scholars; the community gets the last word. According to Abend, the common good, justice, and equality should play a significant role in the logic of scientific research. Gabriel Abend is professor of sociology at University of Lucerne and the author of The Moral Background: An Inquiry into the History of Business Ethics (Princeton). Contents Abbreviations and typographic conventions Prologue (or, will social scientists’ never-ending disputes over words ever end?) First Act 1 Sandwichness wars 2 The problem 3 Nine ways to decline 4 Technical FAQs 5 Two activities 6 Practical reason activities Second Act 7 Word first 8 Activity WF and its discontents 9 Distinction first 10 Conversation starters (fragments, sketches, suggestions, doubts) 11 As a matter of fact Epilogue (so, will social scientists’ never-ending disputes over words ever end?) Appendix: Make Pluto Great Again Acknowledgments References Index A NOTE ON THE TYPE