I am an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy. My main areas of research are in the philosophy and history of science, metaphysics, and aesthetics. Here is my CV.

Much of my research has focused on foundational issues in the biological sciences especially in evolutionary biology and ecology. In my published work, I have examined a variety of topics including the following: the strategies that scientist employ to deal with the numerous idealizations in their models; the nature of species, communities, and ecosystems; the role of consensus and advocacy in science. At the moment, I am working on a paper concerning climate modeling and robustness. Given that a variety of models make the same prediction (i.e., a "robust" prediction) regarding say average surface temperatures, is that a reason to be confident in the prediction? A second paper I am working concerns understanding the "causal commitments" of the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity articulated by Stephen P. Hubbell. The theory assumes that trophically similar species are demographically equivalent (i.e., have the same birth, death, disperal, and speciation rates) but is remarkably accurate in its predictions. How is this possible? 

As of late, I have been interested in aesthetics and what the sciences can contribute to our understanding of the arts. Specifically, how can abstract, non-representational art like Mark Rothko's No. 14 express emotions like sadness? Currently, I am working on a paper using recent work on emotions and mental representation to make headway on this problem.  

This spring, I am teaching: