-
304What is the narrow content of fence (and other definitionally and interpretationally primitive concepts)?Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (3): 138-138. 2011.It's unclear what narrow content is interpersonally shared for concepts that don't originate from core cognition yet are still definitionally and interpretationally primitive. A primary concern is that for these concepts, one cannot draw a principled distinction between inferences that are content determining and those that aren't. The lack of a principled distinction imperils an account of interpersonally shared concepts
-
269Expectations and morality: A dilemmaBehavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (4): 346-346. 2010.We propose Knobe's explanation of his cases encounters a dilemma: Either his explanation works and, counterintuitively, morality is not at the heart of these effects; or morality is at the heart of the effects and Knobe's explanation does not succeed. This dilemma is then used to temper the use of the Knobe paradigm for discovering moral norms
-
230The case against implicit bias fatalismNature Reviews Psychology 1. 2023.The standard associative account of implicit bias posits that the mind unavoidably mirrors the biased co-occurrences that are present in the environment. The resulting fatalistic view of implicit bias as inevitable and immutable is both scientifically unwarranted and societally counterproductive.
-
195Belief: Dumb, Cold, & CynicalIn Eric Schwitzgebel & Jonathan Jong (eds.), What is Belief?, Oxford University Press. forthcoming.We aim to do two things in this article. On the positive end, our goal is to explain how some seemingly incompatible aspects of belief live together, by presenting distinct mechanistic explanations of each of them: in particular we want to show how belief can be discerning, credulous, rational, and irrational. After clarifying our positive view, we take aim at some competitor views in the second half of the paper, particularly offering critiques of epistemic vigilance and social marketplace acco…Read more
-
189Responsibility and the brain sciencesEthical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (5): 511-524. 2008.Some theorists think that the more we get to know about the neural underpinnings of our behaviors, the less likely we will be to hold people responsible for their actions. This intuition has driven some to suspect that as neuroscience gains insight into the neurological causes of our actions, people will cease to view others as morally responsible for their actions, thus creating a troubling quandary for our legal system. This paper provides empirical evidence against such intuitions. Particular…Read more
Areas of Specialization
Philosophy of Cognitive Science |
Philosophy of Mind |
Areas of Interest
Epistemology |