'Clean tools' - fit for Conceptual Engineering?

Posting previously news of a conference on 'Conceptual Engineering' I was drawn and try to follow the following series:

Conceptual Engineering Seminar | Simon Blackburn (Cambridge): TBA 

March 30 @ 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm 

ABSTRACT. — When I hit upon the term ‘conceptual engineering’ in the Introduction to my book Think, I suppose I thought of it as simply a cute way of introducing what philosophers do. I had no idea that the term had already been used, although I have subsequently learned that it was. I have therefore been surprised that books and seminars have subsequently been devoted to the idea: it is as if books and seminars were simply entitled ‘Philosophy’ rather than directed at particular problems within philosophy. In my talk I hope to go further into that and try to understand why it happened. 

Yesterday, Simon Blackburn cited Austin (1956) and the need for 'clean tools', which led me to the following source*:

"First, words are our tools, and, as a minimum, we should use clean tools: we should know what we mean and what we do not, and we must forearm ourselves against the traps that language sets us. Secondly, words are not (except in their own little corner*) facts or things: we need therefore to prise them off the world, to hold them apart from and against it, so that we can realise their inadequacies and arbitrarinesses, and can re-look at the world without blinkers. Thirdly, and more hopefully, our common stock of words embodies all the distinctions men have found worth drawing, and the connexions they have found worth marking, in the lifetimes of many generations: these surely are likely to be more numerous, more sound, since they have stood up to the long test of the survival of the fittest, and more subtle, at least in all ordinary and reasonably practical matters, than any that you or I are likely to think up in our armchairs of an afternoon - the most favoured alternative method."

*my emphasis

Simon's talk of 'clean tools' prompted me to reflect:

The assumed neutrality of Hodges' model. As noted on W2tQ previously, Hodges' model is an invitation to start with a new slate. To leave behind bias and prejudice, to assure unconditional positive regard and a non-judgmental approach and attitude.

'Engineering' is usually conducted within a dedicated physical space. Apprentices will soon be familiar with the discipline of leaving the work environment clean and prepared for the next day. They will learn that tools have their place (even on the screen). Tools themselves also need care; so don't be care-less.

If Occam's razor is a preparatory rule for conceptual hygiene, perhaps we can take this further, or at least propose an addition? There is a 'rule of forceps' (which, it might be argued, is person-centred, or clearly patient-centred?) but not only are forceps a tool, we can utilise a divider too.

In use, Hodges' model suggests and facilitates dichotomous thinking. The forceps may help grasp the the key parts - the polarities of a situation. The divider may serve to help us to weigh and measure the 'distance' of two concepts, especially if they seem to be grounded across two of the model's care (knowledge) domains.

So Hodges' model may have a role in 'conceptual engineering', variously as a dialectic divider or dialectical forceps?

Austin, J. (1956). A Plea for Excuses: The Presidential Address. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 57, new series, 1-30. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4544570Austin, J. (1956). A Plea for Excuses: The Presidential Address. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 57, new series, 1-30. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4544570

There is a legal case of historic interest also described in the Austin's paper.