Summary | Goals | Interests | Teaching | Research | Outreach


I study and teach philosophy and I am a member of the Social and Moral Processing Lab at Florida State University. I also co-organize the Minds Online conference in association with The Brains Blog.

I am a philosopher of mind, philosopher of science, and a wannabe social/cognitive psychologist — a.k.a., an “experimental philosopher.”

In my free time I enjoy quality time with my partner, exercise, nature, travel, soccer, ultimate frisbee, documentaries, comedy, coffee, woodworking, alone time, or some combination of the above. [Back To Top]


I look forward to completing a PhD and broadening my academic horizons. In the meantime, I enjoy teaching, researching, and collaborating. I am also interested in finding better ways to communicate and deliver the value of philosophy, science, and education. [Back To Top]


I am usually thinking about reasoning, willpower, and wellbeing. I think about these topics as a philosopher of science, a philosopher of mind, and a cognitive scientist, but my research often includes helpful perspectives from biology, medicine, psychiatry, computer science, social science, epistemology, and ethics. [Back To Top]


I sometimes watch philosophers like an anthropologist might. It’s a lot of fun, actually. Right away you notice interesting traditions, rituals, and protocols. And as you encounter more philosophers, you’ll discern each tradition’s canonical texts, sacred ideas, and taboos. Spend a little more time with philosophers and you’ll find out about the origin stories of each tradition and the history of conflict between traditions. Then take a step back and look at the institution of academic philosophy and you will find power dynamics, incentive structures, political movements, etc. Oh! I forgot to mention that there are these things called “intuitions” that are – as far as I can tell – magic! Fascinating, right?

But seriously, one of the reasons I care about cognitive science, psychology, and experimental philosophy is that these fields offer insight into what we’re doing when we do philosophy. Philosophers and others might have a folk theory about the nature of human thinking and arguing, but cognitive science, psychology, and their ilk sometime tell a different story.

Why else is reasoning interesting? Well besides being intrinsically interesting, the research on reasoning (a) reveals opportunities to improve our reasoning and (b) makes sense of our otherwise non-sensical judgments and behaviors. [Back To Top]


You’ve probably had the experience of trying to resist temptation. You’ve probably also had the experience of failing to resist temptation. A great deal of philosophy and science is devoted to understanding these failures of willpower. I am particularly interested in understanding what willpower is and how it works. As I see it, the more we understand the nature of willpower, the more likely we are to improve it. And if we can reliably improve willpower, then we might be able to prevent many of the bad outcomes that are associated with willpower failure.

Here’s a fun thought: imagine that there is a “willpower pill” that improves our willpower and thereby allows us to avoid various bad outcomes. I’d bet that lots of people would want to take this pill. Well, we don’t have such a pill, but we might have an alternative. A survey of the scientific research in multiple domains suggests that simple tweaks to our lifestyle can increase the chances of overcoming temptation, make demanding tasks easier, improve productivity, etc. In other words, by changing our lifestyle, we might be able to improve our willpower. So if you think you should take the willpower pill, then maybe you should also change your lifestyle.

Another interesting thought: some of the variables that influence willpower are not within our control. This might mean that someone’s willpower is better or worse than someone else’s willpower in virtue of things that neither party can control. For example, some people — by no effort or choice of their own — have unique access to a lifestyle that allows them to have greater willpower. As a result, these people are more self-controlled, patient, and productive than people with less access to the same lifestyle. So are the people with unique access to certain lifestyles more praiseworthy for having greater willpower? Are people with less access to these lifestyles fully blameworthy for their willpower failures? [Back To Top]


The literature in multiple empirical domains reveals that certain variables have robust effects on our wellbeing. In some cases, we can exercise control over these variables, but we often lack such control. This means that while some of our welfare is up to us, much of it is not. It seems clear from the literature, however, that other people — e.g., neighbors, friends, and family — can influence our wellbeing in ways that we cannot. Moreover, certain institutions can influence our wellbeing in ways that neither we nor our neighbors, friends, or family members can. So while we are not entirely in control of our wellbeing or anyone else’s wellbeing, we do seem to have some control in the matter. And if wellbeing can be differentially influenced by certain people and institutions, then we might wonder how wellbeing ought to be influenced by these people and institutions. We might wonder: Do we have certain obligations to ourselves in terms of our own wellbeing? Do we have certain obligations to our friends and family in terms of their wellbeing? Do institutions have certain obligations to their constituents in terms of their constituents’ wellbeing? Do constituents have certain obligations to their institutions? To other constituents? [Back To Top]


When I am teaching, talking to a student, grading a student’s work or doing some other university duty, I try to keep a few things in mind. One of these things is the fact that students can make decisions that have tremendous and lasting consequences. They can vote. They can serve on juries. They can create other humans. You get the idea. Since students can make such momentous decisions, I try to introduce them to resources and methods that can help improve their decisions. I do this by asking important questions, challenging problematic views, and training students in various strategies. [Back To Top]


Philosophy of science is one of my favorite courses. Science has become something of a fad in my lifetime. As a result, lots of young people are interested in it. However, I find that this interest does not necessarily correlate with sophisticated or even accurate views of science. People say lots of things about science that, upon inspection, seem to be false. For example, people often say that science “proves” or “disproves” things. If you take a careful look at science, however, you find that science can’t actually prove or disprove anything — not conclusively anyway. Also, some famous scientists will say that science doesn’t need philosophy. Take one look at this claim and you realize the irony: it is a philosophical claim. Worse yet, the arguments for this claim are often the worst arguments out there. So what these scientists seem to be showing is not that they can do without philosophy, but that they do philosophy badly. There are lots of other things that people say about science: e.g., that theoretical entities like strings and bosons are real, that there is a single scientific method, that science is objective, etc. These claims sound right at first, but not after some reflection. So what should we say about science? To borrow a refrain from Carol Cleland, one thing is abundantly clear: science works. Exactly how and why science works, however, is not so clear. [Back To Top]


I am interested in both theoretical and experimental approaches to problems. So, sometimes I think about problems from my armchair desk chair (and occasionally my standing desk), but sometimes I take a more empirical approach. [Back To Top]


I have written papers about reasoning, implicit bias, willpower, depression, scientific realism, cognitive therapy, cosmopolitan egalitarianism, racial integration, unconscious intentions, free will, belief, personal identity, the non-identity problem, and posthumous harm. [Back To Top]

Empirical Stuff

I have studied the relationships between philosophical training/selection, cognitive style, personality, and philosophical judgment. Also, I am making a 7.5 million word philosophy text corpus from various papers and books in philosophy. When the corpus is ready, it can be used to answer a variety of questions about philosophy — e.g., do philosophers appeal to intuition? In addition to this, I am interested in replicating a variety of results in psychology — e.g., the effects of reasoning on implicit attitudes. [Back To Top]


There are many ways to convey the value of philosophy and cognitive science beyond the walls of a university. Before starting grad school, I was working on an eBook anthology for middle school and high school students. Now that I am in grad school, I have little time for this project, but I still think about ways to reach more than just my colleagues and students. This is partly why I try to have a social media presence and maintain a blog. I’m also becoming interested in other mediums. I think video and animation can be compelling fun addictive, so I often think about starting a YouTube channel dedicated to philosophy and cognitive science. One idea is to adapt a SciShow or Crash Course model where brief, fast-paced, and entertaining videos become vehicles for education and discussion. School of Life and Wireless Philosophy are already doing this for philosophy. I’ve not seen a good example of these kinds of videos about cognitive science. So there might be opportunities for (a) videos that offer a more thorough treatment of various questions in philosophy (b) really any kind of educational videos about cognitive science. I’d be thrilled to contribute to a project like this. [Back To Top]

And, yes: I have been told that I look like Neil Patrick Harris.