Biodiversity finance aims to support ecosystem and habitat preservation but faces significant challenges of greenwashing. This article examines how contested values, measurement problems, and disputed causal claims create distinctive routes for misinformation and misrepresentation in biodiversity finance.

This large-scale study investigates the structural validity of translated versions of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale across fifteen languages, combining psychometric analysis with version-specific validity reports.

This large collaborative study examines how situational factors affect moral judgement across culturally diverse populations, showing both cross-cultural variation and recurrent structural patterns in trolley-dilemma responses.

This paper defends a version of the tripartite analysis of knowledge by arguing that Gettier cases do not refute it when justification is understood in anti-luck terms.

With Alexander Gebharter, I revisit Goldman’s causal theory of knowledge and argue that an interventionist account of causation can overcome familiar luck-based objections.

This paper argues that modal and probabilistic accounts of luck should be combined in order to explain more adequately the different ways in which luck comes in degrees.

This paper compares two versions of Duncan Pritchard’s modal account of luck and argues that the earlier view offers a better account of degrees of luck, significance, and the subjective dimension of lucky events.

This article examines how different forms of epistemic luck relate to internalist and externalist theories of justification, and argues that the distinction between them can be clarified in terms of their compatibility with luck.

A short symposium contribution on Norton’s account of inductive inference, focused on what the material theory implies for epistemology and for the status of the problem of induction.

This paper critically evaluates Norton’s claim that the material theory of induction dissolves the problem of induction, arguing that its epistemic advantages are narrower than they may first appear.

I reconsider the epistemic relevance of the persistent interlocutor and argue that existing views fail to capture its role adequately in argumentative practice. The paper develops a safer and more precise account of that role.

This article applies the modal norm of safety to epistemic argumentation and uses it to develop a new perspective on argumentative relevance and on the relation between dialectical and epistemic norms.

A conference paper examining the relationship between argumentation, dissent, and luck in epistemic assessment, arguing that luck-based considerations bear on what counts as a good argumentative response to a persistent interlocutor.

Doctoral dissertation examining the relationship between epistemic justification and various forms of epistemic luck. Supervised by prof. dr. C. Dutilh-Novaes and prof. dr. A.J.M. Peijnenburg.