Unlike many relevance logicians, I'm not in it for the relevance. I'm in it for the semantics. So my work ends up motivated by metaphysical, linguistic, and epistemic issues and also by issues in the philosophy of mathematical practice.
In a nutshell, here's how to get from semantics to relevance. First, connect conditionality to compatibility. Second, notice that compatibility is a ternary relation. Worlds are not compatible with one another on their own. They are compatible with one another relative to another world. Taking these things seriously gets you (I claim) to propositional RW. To get first-order semantics, use honest-to-god arbitrary elements to define truth for quantified sentences. This gets you to (essentially) Fine's stratified semantics.
I have three papers related to this work currently either under review or in revision. I am also coauthoring two related textbooks. The first, This is Philosophy of Logic, is under contract with Wiley. The second, Introduction to Relevance Logic, is under contract with Routledge. I am interested in collaborating on further projects in this vein. I would be particularly excited to work on a book on quantification in substructural logics. Drop me a line if that sounds like fun to you!
Recent and Upcoming Talks:
Want to hang out? Here are some ways to make it happen:
- In February, I'll be visiting my good friends at the University of Connecticut, before heading up to Northampton to give some talks at Smith College.
- In late March, I'll be talking about logical pluralism and substructural logics at the annual meeting of the North Carolina Philosophical Society.
- In May, I'm hoping to head back to Connecticut again for the upcoming meeting of the Society for Exact Philosophy.
Slides and (sometimes!) videos of recent talks (more coming soon!):