I'm an Associate Professor of Philosophy at UMass Amherst. I work on
epistemology. More specifically, I am interested in higher-order evidence, permissivism, and accuracy. I am also interested in ethics and practical rationality.
Before coming to UMass, I taught for two years at Rice University. Before that, I was a graduate student at MIT. My dissertation focused on the relationship between epistemic rationality and truth. And before that, I went to Swarthmore College and studied philosophy and studio
art.
Publications/Forthcoming
Are You Now or Have You Ever Been an Impermissivist? A conversation among friends and enemies of epistemic freedom.
(with
Sinan Dogramaci and
Miriam Schoenfield.) Forthcoming in
Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 3rd edition.
[PhilPapers]
[abstract]
- We debate whether permissivism is true. We start off by assuming an accuracy-oriented framework, and then discuss metaepistemological questions about how our epistemic evaluations promote accuracy.
Higher-Order Evidence.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.). URL
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/higher-order-evidence/.
Shrinking Three Arguments for Conditionalization. [2021]
Philosophical Perspectives 35(1): 303-319.
[PhilPapers]
[abstract]
- Three arguments for conditionalization face an objection that is structurally analogous to the objection to group punishment: they purport to locate an overall problem when the real issue is something more specific. I develop this objection and suggest ways that these arguments could address it.
Dilating and Contracting Arbitrarily. [2022] (with
David Builes and
Miriam Schoenfield.)
Noûs 56(1): 3-20.
[penultimate]
[abstract]
- Standard accuracy-based approaches to imprecise credences have the consequence that it is rational to move between precise and imprecise credences arbitrarily, without gaining any new evidence. Building on the Educated Guessing Framework of Horowitz (2019), we develop an alternative accuracy-based approach to imprecise credences that does not have this shortcoming. We argue that it is always irrational to move from a precise state to an imprecise state arbitrarily, however it can be rational to move from an imprecise state to a precise state arbitrarily.
The Truth Problem for Permissivism. [2019]
The Journal of Philosophy 116 (5):237-262.
[penultimate]
[abstract]
- I discuss a way of linking permissive rationality and truth, defended by Miriam Schoenfield, and argue that it is unsatisfactory. I then argue there is a satisfactory way of linking impermissive rationality and truth.
Predictably Misleading Evidence. [2019] In Matthias Skipper Rasmussen and Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen, eds
Higher-Order Evidence: New Essays, OUP.
[penultimate]
[abstract]
- I argue that higher-order evidence presents a special theoretical challenge: it is predictably misleading. This makes it hard to square with a plausible view of the relationship between evidence and truth. However, adopting two notions of rationality, as many recent authors have been tempted to do, brings its own problems. I suggest that accommodating higher-order evidence in a unified way requires reconceiving the nature of evidence.
Accuracy and Educated Guesses. [2019] In
Oxford Studies in Epistemology 6.
[penultimate]
[abstract]
- What is the relation between rational credence and truth? I propose a new account, according to which credences can be more or less truth-conducive by sanctioning true or false educated guesses. I argue that this account can be used to justify certain coherence constraints on rational credence, such as probabilistic coherence and immodesty.
*Winner of the 2015 Marc Sanders Prize in Epistemology.
Epistemic Utility and the "Jamesian Goals". [2017] In Jeffrey Dunn and Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij, eds.,
Epistemic Consequentialism, OUP.
[draft]
[abstract]
- William James famously claimed that rational belief involves a tradeoff between two goals: believing truth and avoiding error. So do different tradeoffs license different responses to one's evidence? I argue that we cannot make sense of this Jamesian thought for rational credence.
Uniqueness: A New Argument [2016] (with
Sinan Dogramaci).
Philosophical Issues 26:
Knowledge and Mind. 130-147.
[pdf]
[abstract]
- We argue for Uniqueness via IBE: Uniqueness allows us to best explain the high value of our practice of ascribing rationality to others.
Respecting
All the Evidence [2015] (with
Paulina Sliwa).
Philosophical Studies 172 (11):2835-2858.
[pdf]
[abstract]
- You should believe what your total evidence supports. But cases of misleading higher-order evidence present a challenge: in these cases, taking both first- and higher-order evidence at face value leads to a seemingly irrational incoherence between first- and higher-order attitudes. We propose a principle which resolves this conflict.
Expecting the Unexpected [2015] (with
Tom Dougherty
and
Paulina Sliwa),
Res Philosophica 92 (2):301-321, special issue on transformative experience.
[pdf]
[abstract]
- L.A. Paul has recently argued that major life decisions, such as
the decision whether to have children, pose problems for standard decision theory because they involve transformative
experiences, that is, experiences such that we cannot know what they are like until we have them. We argue that, contra
Paul, transformative experience introduces no special difficulty for decision theory. Insofar as major life decisions are hard to accommodate within the standard decision-theoretic framework, we claim, this is due to familiar problems and is
independent of transformative experiences.
Epistemic Akrasia [2014].
Noûs 48 (4):718-744.
[pdf]
[abstract]
- Can it be rational to believe both "P" and "my evidence doesn't support P"? Many people assume that it cannot, but this idea has come under fire in recent literature. I provide an argument for why such "akratic" belief is not rational, at least in paradigm cases: it sanctions bad reasoning and irrational action. I also suggest that there may be some atypical cases in which epistemic akrasia can be rational.
Immoderately Rational [2013].
Philosophical Studies 167(1):1-16.
[pdf]
[abstract]
- Why does epistemic rationality matter? I argue that how we can answer this question - and whether we can answer at all - depends on how permissive rationality is. I argue that both extremely permissive and extremely impermissive views can offer good answers to this question. But moderately permissive views face a special challenge.
Book Reviews and Symposia
Symposium piece on Richard Pettigrew’s
Accuracy and the Laws of Credence,
Episteme.
[draft]
Review of Jonathan Kvanvig,
Rationality & Reflection.
Mind 125 (498): 565-569.
[pdf]
In Progress
Learning to Guess Right
[abstract]
- In this paper I try to figure out if & how my guessing framework for accuracy can justify conditionalization.
Dumb and Dumber
[abstract]
- What does it mean to "approach" or "approximate" ideal rationality, and is approximation really something we want? I explore some possibilities. I argue that it might be best to justify idealizing in epistemology without appealing to approximation.
Teaching Stuff
Here are some example papers I created, along with a scavenger hunt. I also had the students grade these using my rubrics. Please feel free to borrow these. Comments welcome.
[good paper]
[bad paper]
[scavenger hunt]
[another "good" paper, annotated]
Here is a recent version of my rubrics. Please feel free to borrow these too.
[rubrics]
Courses
Phil 164: Medical Ethics. I teach this all the time.
[recent syllabus]
Phil 700: Proseminar in Philosophy (cotaught). F16, F19, F20.
Phil 542: Higher Order Evidence. S18.
[syllabus]
Phil 542: Epistemology: Who Cares? S17.
[syllabus]
Phil 342: Introduction to Epistemology. S17, S20.
[syllabus]
Phil 742: Testimony, Authority, and Well-Being. S18.
[syllabus]
Phil 303: Theory of Knowledge. (Rice University.) F15, S15.
[syllabus]
Phil 503: Seminar on Epistemic Value and Normativity. (Rice University.) S15.
[syllabus]
Phil 304: Metaphysics. (Rice University.) S16.
[syllabus]
Phil 100: Problems of Philosophy. (Rice University.) S16.
[syllabus]