 If we take operationalism as a commitment to increase empirical content, Bridgman was not so much a high-handed judge who pronounced upon the meaningfulness of concepts in a black-and-white manner. Rather, he offered operational analysis as a tool of self-diagnosis and self-improvement. He was interested in advancing science, not in carping against it; like Descartes, he used skepticism as a means of achieving a more positive end. In this connection there is a point to Bunge’s (1988, 341) contention that “operational definition” is a misnomer and we should instead speak of “indicator hypotheses” that offer links between unobservable properties and observable ones. In my view, Bridgman’s enterprise can be understood quite well as an instance of what goes by the name of “conceptual engineering” these days (see Cappelen 2018, and Brun 2016 for connections with Carnapian explication). Concepts can be engineered to various ends, and in the case of operationalism the overriding concern is to make them as empirically meaningful as the circumstances permit.