Greenville, North Carolina, United States of America
Areas of Interest
Epistemology
  •  134
    What do you do with misleading evidence?
    Philosophical Quarterly 54 (217). 2004.
    Gilbert Harman has presented an argument to the effect that if S knows that p then S knows that any evidence for not-p is misleading. Therefore S is warranted in being dogmatic about anything he happens to know. I explain, and reject, Sorensen's attempt to solve the paradox via Jackson's theory of conditionals. S is not in a position to disregard evidence even when he knows it to be misleading
  •  160
    On a so‐Called Solution to a Paradox
    Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97 (2): 283-297. 2015.
    The mooronic solution to the surprise quiz paradox says students know there will be a surprise quiz one day this week but they lose this knowledge on the penultimate day. This is because ‘there will be a surprise quiz one day this week’ then becomes an instance of Moore's paradox. This view has surprising consequences. Furthermore, even though the surprise quiz announcement becomes an instance of Moore's paradox on the penultimate day, this does not prevent the students from knowing the quiz is …Read more
  •  96
    What Place for the A Priori? (edited book)
    Open Court. 2011.
    The book gives a diverse and even-handed treatment of the topic without attempting to resolve the matter.
  •  276
    The Coercion Argument Against Performance-Enhancing Drugs
    Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 41 (2): 267-277. 2014.
    This paper is a critique of the coercion argument against performance-enhancing drugs . According to this argument, lifting the ban on PEDs would undermine the autonomy of athletes by creating a situation where everyone must either use PEDs or not compete at the highest levels of sport. Four problems are raised for this argument and it is concluded that the argument fails. A variation on the coercion argument is also considered and rejected
  •  171
    Knowledge with and Without Belief
    Metaphilosophy 45 (1): 120-132. 2014.
    This article argues for the thesis that the distinction between propositional and doxastic justification should be extended to knowledge. A consequence of this thesis is that there is a type of knowledge that requires belief and a type that does not. A familiar example strikingly similar to the sort of example used to introduce the propositional/doxastic justification makes a prima facie case. Additional theoretical advantages are revealed when the distinction is applied within the context of so…Read more