My research aims to advance pragmatist philosophical methods, especially in philosophy of science & technology

My dissertation developed a pragmatic approach to understanding causal reasoning surrounding technological disasters

Roughly, the approach is based on the following idea. Systems are influenced by many causal factors. For example, sociotechnical systems are influenced by many technical factors as well as many systemic factors. Different causal factors have various causal features. Some produce fast effects, while others bring about effects more slowly. Some affect systems in a few circumstances, while others influence their behaviors more invariably. Some factors cause one type of outcome, while others can shape many aspects of a system. Some factors take sustained time and effort to change, while others can be changed quickly and easily. Different causal factors often carry varying combinations of causal features. Depending on a causal factor’s features, it can be more or less useful for achieving certain epistemic and practical purposes. Often, different combinations of features carry important trade-offs as well. My Philosophy of Science article [Open Access] and my recent manuscript on causal delay presented at PSA2022 [Phil-Sci Archive] demonstrate this approach

Currently, I’m doing historical research to uncover John Stuart Mill’s pragmatic methodology for analyzing scientific reasoning in his System of Logic. I’m also interested in how Mill’s philosophy of science relates to his progressive political philosophy, how his endeavor to expel “necessary truths” binds his thought together, and why William James thought Mill was the “leader” of American Pragmatism

I’m also currently researching how systemic features influence sociotechnical systems. For example, I’m researching how different social hierarchies influence how sociotechnical systems can and can’t behave. I’m also researching the writings of tech critics (such as Postman, Mumford, and Illich) to draw philosophical insights about how technological systems shape us, how we think, what we find meaningful, and how we can improve our ethical reasoning about technology