Lecturer in Philosophy

University of Bristol

About me

I work on formal epistemology and logic, and often on the connection between these.

I have a particular interest in credal versions of the liar paradox. My PhD primarily worked on modifying accounts of the liar to deal with probabilities. I am now considering whether these accounts can help us understand epistemic rationality in these cases.

I have a broader interest in thinking about epistemic rationality when we reject some of the underlying assumptions, for example, when the logic is non-classical, the decision theory is risk-sensitive, or where the model of belief is relaxed, such as allowing for imprecise probabilities.


  • Accuracy
  • Models of degreed belief
  • Non-classical Logic
  • Liar paradox

Employment and Education


My current projects…

Undermining Beliefs and Imprecise Probabilities

This studies epistemic versions of the liar paradox and suggests imprecise probabilities are rationally required in such cases.

Epistemic Rationality

How do accuracy-considerations apply in settings such as risk-aware decision theories, non-classical logic, imprecise probabilities?

Recent Publications

Indeterminate Truth and Credences

We investigate the supervaluational Kripkean account of truth and show how it can apply to finding rational indeterminate credences in undermining scenarios.

Accurate Updating for the Risk-Sensitive

We argue that accuracy-theoretic considerations still tell the risk-sensitive to update by conditionalization.

Strict Propriety is Weak

We note that strict propriety follows from weak propriety, given truth-directedness, thus closing an argumentative gap in the literature.

Avoiding Risk and Avoiding Evidence

This argues that evidence gathering is epistemically irrational for the (Buchak-style) risk-avoidant agent. To do this we consider how accuracy should be measured once risk-awareness is rationally permissible.



Academic Title