I am a member of the Department of Philosophy and the Environmental Studies Program at Lewis and Clark College. My main areas of research are in the philosophy of environmental sciences (especially ecology) and environmental ethics though I am very interested in ethics and aesthetics more generally.
Much of my research has focused on foundational issues in the science of ecology especially the role of modeling. Ecological populations, communities, and ecosystems are highly complex and our ability to experiment on these systems is extraordinarily limited. Models used to represent these systems are often highly idealized. How are models to be evaluated if they are so difficult to experimentally test? How can models be explanatory if they are literally false?
I am also concerned with how theories and models are used in general environmental decision-making. Since environmental systems are so complex, there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding their protection. If models used in conservation biology, climatology, and environmental economics are highly idealized, then what are their shortcomings and how do these limitations affect policy issues? I believe it is crucial to understand the purposes of modeling in the environmental sciences if we are to reasonably assess political decisions based on this theoretical research.
A second area of my research concerns the nature of communities and ecosystems. In several publications, I first provide analyses of various community and ecosystem concepts – essentially examining and classifying how ecologists have conceived of these purported objects. Second, I consider the most serious challenges to their existence – gradient and paleoecological analysis respectively. Third, I have argued that neither threatens the existence of communities and ecosystems. However, I might be changing my mind on this...
A third area of research concerns the nature and appropriate role of values in the environmental sciences. It is relatively uncontroversial to note that much of science is not “value-neutral.” That is to say, there are both epistemic and moral values at work. In the environmental sciences, however, there are often more controversial values advocated by scientists such as the intrinsic value of non-human organisms or collectives. Likewise, there is much ado made about the notion of “scientific consensus”. I have tried to articulate what values are at stake, when scientists ought to be advocates, and why scientific consensus is important.
I am currently working on a book tentatively entitled On the Contrary: A Philosophical Examination of the Environmental Sciences and their Critics examining these issues (and many others) especially in ecology, climatology, and environmental economics. Here is a short summary of the project and a paper describing some of the controversies I find interesting. Ooh, and here are three new papers:
Climate, Consensus, and Contrarians
Subsistence versus Sustainable Emissions? Equity and Climate Change
On the Very Idea of an Ecosystem
PHIL 215 text: Foundations of Environmental Philosophy
