• Natural Law Today: The Present State of the Perennial Philosophy (edited book)
    with Steven Brust
    Lexington Books. 2018.
    Natural Law Today gives a strong voice to classical natural law theory as the best answers to the fundamental questions of ethics and as the best framework for political and social life. It explains various aspects of that theory and defends it against common misperceptions and criticisms.
  •  7
    The Rise and Decline of American Religious Freedom
    The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 17 (4): 718-720. 2017.
  •  6
    The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (review)
    The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 17 (2): 357-360. 2017.
  •  205
    The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation
    with M. Anne Britt
    Thinking and Reasoning 14 (1): 1-27. 2008.
    The myside bias in written argumentation entails excluding other side information from essays. To determine the locus of the bias, 86 Experiment 1 participants were assigned to argue either for or against their preferred side of a proposal. Participants were given either balanced or unrestricted research instructions. Balanced research instructions significantly increased the use of other side information. Participants' notes, rather than search patterns, predicted the myside bias. Participants …Read more
  •  23
    Adaptive redundancy, denominator neglect, and the base-rate fallacy
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (3): 286-287. 2007.
    Homo sapiens have evolved a dual-process cognitive architecture that is adaptive but prone to systematic errors. Fuzzy-trace theory predicts that nested or overlapping class-inclusion relations create processing interference, resulting in denominator neglect: behaving as if one ignores marginal denominators in a 2 × 2 table. Ignoring marginal denominators leads to fallacies in base-rate problems and conjunctive and disjunctive probability estimates
  •  9
    Some empirical qualifications to the arguments for an argumentative theory
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2): 92-93. 2011.
    The empirical research on the psychology of argumentation suggests that people are prone to fallacies and suboptimal performance in generating, comprehending, and evaluating arguments. Reasoning and argumentation are interrelated skills that use many of the same cognitive processes. The processes we use to convince others are also used to convince ourselves. Argumentation would be ineffective if we couldn't reason for ourselves