Publications

1. What Philosophical Disagreement and Philosophical Skepticism Hinge On
   Synthese (2022) 200: 1–14 (with Annalisa Coliva)

   Philosophers disagree. A lot. Pervasive disagreement is part of the territory; consensus is hard to find. Some think this should lead us to embrace philosophical skepticism: skepticism about the extent to which we can know, or justifiably believe, the philosophical views we defend and advance. Most philosophers in the literature fall into one camp or the other: philosophical skepticism or philosophical anti-skepticism. Drawing on the insights of hinge epistemology, this paper proposes another way forward, an intermediate position that appeals both to skeptical and anti-skeptical intuitions concerning the possibility and scope of philosophical knowledge. The main advantage of our account is that it’s able to recover some philosophical knowledge while also being compatible with philosophical skepticism.

   [PDF]

2. Philosophical Progress, Skepticism, and Disagreement
   The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Disagreement (2022) (with Annalisa Coliva)

   This chapter serves as an opinionated introduction to the problem of convergence (that there is no clear convergence to the truth in philosophy) and the problem of peer disagreement (that disagreement with a peer rationally demands suspending one’s beliefs), and some of the issues they give rise to, namely, philosophical skepticism and progress in philosophy. After introducing both topics and surveying the various positions in the literature we explore the prospects of an alternative, hinge-theoretic account.

   [PDF]

3. Against Philosophical Proofs Against Common Sense
   Analysis (2021) 81: 207–215 (with Evan Welchance)

   Many philosophers think that common sense knowledge survives sophisticated philosophical proofs against it. Recently, however, Bryan Frances (2021) has advanced a philosophical proof that he thinks common sense cannot survive. Exploiting philosophical paradoxes like the Sorites, Frances attempts to show how common sense leads to paradox and therefore that common sense methodology is unstable. In this paper, we show how Frances’s proof fails and then present Frances with a dilemma.

   [PDF]

4. A Puzzle About Moorean Metaphysics
   Philosophical Studies (2021) 178: 493–513

   Some metaphysicians believe that existence debates are easily resolved by trivial inferences from Moorean premises. This paper considers how the introduction of negative Moorean facts—negative existentials that command Moorean certainty—complicates this picture. In particular, it shows how such facts, when combined with certain plausible metaontological principles, generate a puzzle that commits the proponents of this method to a contradiction.

   [PDF]

In Progress

1. The Philosophy of Susan Stebbing
   Under contract with Oxford University Press (with Annalisa Coliva)

   This is the first volume to be dedicated exclusively to the philosophy of Susan Stebbing (1885–1943). Through fourteen, previously unpublished essays, this book traces and explores the depth and breadth of Stebbing’s philosophical contributions across a diverse range of issues in analytic philosophy—from logic and science, to public philosophy and politics—and reinforces the importance of Stebbing’s place in that history as well as the saliency of her ideas to issues still under dispute today.

2. Proof, Circularity, and Certainty

   This paper comes in two parts. The first part draws on textual evidence to argue that (i) Moore was aware of the worries concerning the circularity of his proof in “Proof of an External World” (1939) and that (ii) Moore didn’t think these worries were warranted. Yet, even if Moore is right, there’s still a sense in which his proof is highly puzzling. I offer one diagnosis—what’s puzzling is Moore’s failure to make explicit his metaphilosophy; Moore thinks of the question concerning the external world as an empirical question best answered by empirical, not philosophical, means—which leads to a new worry addressed in the second part of the paper. At the end of “Proof,” Moore concedes that he can’t prove the truth of his premises unless he can also prove that he isn’t dreaming—something he believes he can’t do. Yet, if as I argue, Moore’s proof is an empirical one, don’t we have ordinary empirical proof that we aren’t dreaming? Here, I draw on some distinctions Moore makes in “Certainty” (1959)—that is, between logical and mathematical certainty and empirical certainty—to make sense of this strange conclusion of Moore’s.

3. What Moore’s Hands Might Mean

   [Abstract coming soon]

4. Making Sense of Moore and Stebbing on Common Sense

   This paper investigates Moore’s and Stebbing’s relationship to common sense and how they both understood its role in philosophical theorizing. Like Moore, common sense played a central role in Susan Stebbing’s philosophy. “We must begin with commonsense facts” (1932/33: 74) says Stebbing, for “we cannot find premisses more certain than [these] from which [such common sense beliefs] may be deduced” (ibid., 70). In this respect, “common sense needs no defence” (1938–39: 84). While it’s clear that Stebbing, twelve years G.E. Moore’s junior, was influenced by his broadly common sense approach to philosophy, it’s not always clear they agreed on the nature and scope of this approach. The overarching goal is to bring some unexplored themes to light from a philosopher—Stebbing—who has been largely (and unjustly) overlooked and to reevaluate the views of a philosopher—Moore—whose common sense commitments have largely been treated as open-and-shut.

5. Questions with and without Method: Moore, Carnap, and Wittgenstein

   This paper brings together three influential figures of analytic philosophy and examines their status as “anti-philosophers.” By “anti-philosopher,” I mean that all three philosophers were keen on circumscribing the limits and scope of what the philosophical method, and philosophy more generally, could achieve. All three, however, did this in interestingly different but related ways. To situate my discussion, I focus on the question concerning the external world and examine how each philosopher understood this question (as well as related questions) and then draw out some of the anti-philosophical commitments that unite all three of them.

6. What Is Moore’s Proof Proof Against?

   I attempt to clarify the debate between two opposing readings of Moore’s infamous proof: the anti-idealist reading (Baldwin 1990, Coliva 2004, Sosa 2007) and the anti-skeptical reading (Soames 2003, Weatherall 2017, Maddy 2017). I first argue that the existing textual evidence used to respectively support both readings is underdetermined. I then present new textual evidence to argue that a hybrid view is more likely correct; that is, Moore’s proof is proof against both idealism and skepticism and Moore intended it as such.

7. Moorean Modesty in Metaphysics

   When it comes to common sense, some metaphysicians are disbelievers: common sense either has no place in serious metaphysical theorizing or else it does but it’s highly defeasible. Others give common sense a role to play but a superficial one: common sense is right about there being tables, but this doesn’t entail that there really are tables. These metaphysicians thus attempt to pay their respects to common sense at the cost of downgrading it to mere sentential truth. Accordingly, call such metaphysician downgraders. Disbelievers and downgraders have disowned common sense in two distinct ways. In this paper, I explain why I think this is a mistake.

8. Remembering What You Know

   I want to make the case for what I call everyday epistemology: the idea that our ordinary, everyday epistemic practices are sophisticated and satisfying enough to answer various skeptical philosophical challenges. This picture ends up presupposing a certain conception of philosophy. Philosophy, I argue, involves a certain kind of overthinking which can take either virtuous or vicious forms. When virtuous, philosophical overthinking can lead to increased understanding, perhaps even knowledge. But when vicious, philosophical overthinking can be epistemically harmful; it can confuse us, causing us to forget what we know. The value in practicing everyday epistemology, then, is in its ability to remind us of what we know. Reviewing, for example, Moore’s infamous proof or Austin’s dismantling of the argument from illusion, can function as philosophically sobering antidotes to the doubt we may experience when in the grip of certain skeptical attitudes generated by philosophical overthinking.