Abstract

Nachev and Hacker are justified in drawing our attention to the importance of conceptual clarity and coherence as these are too often overshadowed by technical sophistication and methodological rigor, which by themselves count for little. But can a process of “conceptual analysis” actually help us to avoid pitfalls, or does it merely serve to expose those pitfalls in hindsight? What is needed is a method for making scientific arguments formulaic and laying bare the implicit assumptions. We have tools for this, but not everyone uses them.