While most of my published work to date has concerned dimensional analysis (as will some future work), I have work under development that addresses the history and philosophy of cosmology, metametaphysics of science, and the history of analytic philosophy. As is the case for many, my interests outrun my publication record. I will also soon be doing some interviews which will contribute to a philosophy of science interview project which began as an Exiled Empiricists sub-project (the overall project is led by Sander Verhaegh) and which is being extended and led by Fons Dewulf. I am also slowly planning a biography of the chemist, physicist, and science policy leader Richard Tolman, any tips on sources are appreciated.

Philosophy and History of Dimensional Analysis

I have now published several papers on dimensional analysis, a logic of quantities which respects their distinct dimensions (e.g. mass, force, velocity). Most of these come directly from my dissertation, though others extend beyond it, as will further work. There is a lot of work to be done on these issues, so I do not anticipate a close end point, though the rate of my work on these issues will probably slow down some after another batch of two or three papers.

• “The Π-Theorem as a Guide to Symmetries and the Argument Against Absolutism”, forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Metaphysics Vol. 14. In this paper I use a fundamental result of dimensional analysis, the Π-theorem, to define a class of quantity transformations which are both empirical and dynamical symmetries. As such, they license an argument against absolutism, a commitment the fundamentality of intrinsic quantity magnitudes relative to quantity relations (ratios).
• “Metaphysics and Convention in Dimensional Analysis, 1914-1917”, in HOPOS, 14(2). This is both a historical study of the formal development of dimensional analysis in the midst of a dispute regarding its foundations and an account of its metaphysics going beyond the views offered by the disputants. It is supplemented with a correspondence I found from two of the main disputants (Bridgman and Tolman) in the 30s, which confirms and extends some of the analysis I give of the original dispute. See “The Bridgman-Tolman-Warburton Correspondence on Dimensional Analysis, 1934”, in the same issue of HOPOS.
• “Calibrating the Theory of Model Mediated Measurement”, in European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 14(40). Here dimensional analysis is used to provide an amendment to an ascendant account of the epistemology of measurement. The explicitly coherentist account is thereby made more responsive to some persistent foundationalist concerns. The amendment is supported by and exhibited by a study of Bridgman’s use of dimensional analysis in his experimental work, which extended the domain of high-pressure physics.
• “The Nature of the Physical and the Meaning of Physicalism”, in Theoria, 38(2). This paper uses some insights from dimensional analysis to provide a quantitative account of the physical which escapes Hempel’s Dilemma for physicalism. On this view, a physical object is any object which can be described by dimensional quantities. This account makes physicalism into an empirical claim that will or will not be borne out by experience.

General History and Philosophy of Science

My other published work displays what I take to be an integrated approach to history and philosophy of science.

• “Bridgman and the Normative Independence of Science”, in Synthese, 203(141). In response to Heather Douglas’ use of Bridgman as a paradigm defender of the value-free ideal of science, I provide a fuller historical account of his conception of the relation between science and society. In doing so I sketch out an account of the normative independence of science that is well worth considering.
• “Hubble and Huxley: Patriot and Pacifist, Hollywood Stars, Seers of Nebulae”, in Griffith Observer, September 2023. This popular piece looks at the intriguing friendship of Edwin Hubble and Aldous Huxley. Besides detailing their relationship and the scientific and political contexts of that relationship, I go on to suggest a shared sensibility of empiricism that brings their disparate intellectual work together.