Courses Completed

ANAT 1030 – Human Anatomy
ARTS 1110 – Introduction to University
BIOL 1020 – Biology 1: Principles and Themes
BIOL 1030 – Biology 2: Biological Diversity, Function and Interaction
CHEM 1300 – University 1 Chemistry: Structure and Modeling in Chemistry
CHEM 1310 – University 1 Chemistry: An Introduction to Physical Chemistry
CHEM 2210 – Introductory Organic Chemistry 1: Structure and Function
CHEM 2360 – Biochemistry 1: Biomolecules and an Introduction to Metabolic Energy
ENGL 1300 – Literature Since 1900
GEOG 1280 – Introduction to Human Geography
HIST 1260 – New Directions in History: Inquiries into the Cultural Basis of the Modern World
ICEL 2400 – Icelandic Folktales in a European Context
MATH 1300 – Vector Geometry and Linear Algebra
MATH 1500 – Introduction to Calculus
MATH 1700 – Calculus 2
MBIO 1010 – Microbiology
PHIL 1200 – Introduction to Philosophy
PHIL 1290 – Critical Thinking
PHIL 2180 – Artificial Intelligence and Creativity
PHIL 2610 – The History and Philosophy of Science
PHIL 2740 – Ethics and Biomedicine
PHIL 2760 – Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge
PHIL 2790 – Moral Philosophy
PHIL 2840 – The Ethics of War and Peace
PHIL 2860 – Philosophy of Law
PHIL 3430 – Problems in the Philosophy of Law
PHIL 3760 – Moral Theory I
PHIL 4460 – Responsibility, Desert and Punishment
PHIL 4490 – Philosophy of Mind
PHRM 1000 – Introduction to Pharmacy
PHYS 1050 – Physics 1: Mechanics
PHYS 1070 – Physics 2: Waves and Modern Physics
PHYS 1830 – Perspective on the Universe
PHYS 2070 – Observational Astronomy
PHYS 2270 – Physical Topics for Biologists A
PHYS 3180 – Stars
PSYC 1200 – Introduction to Psychology

Notable Papers

Title: Long Essay – Demarcation of Science: Involves Natural Laws, Explanatory by Reference to Natural Laws, Testable, and Tentative
Class: PHIL 2610
Date: March 21, 2012
Keywords: Science, Michael Ruse, Demarcation, Natural Laws, Explanatory, Testable, Tentative, Philosophy
Abstract: In this paper I concentrate on Michael Ruse’s four criteria for the demarcation of science with particular focus on the theory of evolution and creation science for explaining criteria. I argue that Ruse’s criteria for the demarcation of science is correct and creation science does not qualify as science. I begin by explaining Ruse’s four criteria for the demarcation of science. After that I apply the criterion of natural laws to creation science, object, and reply. I apply the criterion of explanatory in reference to natural laws to creation science. Then I connect both these criteria to the criterion of testability. I discuss the claim all science is falsifiable and propose that falsifiability exists as a continuum. Lastly, I discuss how the connectedness of theories enables scientists to use other theories as independent tests on background beliefs. 

Title: Essay Two – The “Lake Woebegone Effect”
Class: PHIL 3760
Date: March 9, 2012
Keywords: Lake Woebegone Effect, Experts, Deference, Morals, Philosophy
Abstract: In this paper, I explain McGrath’s puzzle of pure moral deference and the “Lake Woebegone Effect” as a solution to the puzzle. I explain McGrath’s rejection of the “Lake Woebegone Effect”. I defend the “Lake Woebegone Effect” with a case involving moral deference to a priest, allowing the “Lake Woebegone Effect” to remain a plausible solution to the puzzle.  

Title: Essay One – Duty to Promote Pleasure in Oneself
Class: PHIL 3760
Date: February 3, 2012
Keywords: Pleasure, Intrinsic Good, Duty
Abstract: In this paper, I explain Ross’s final position on the duty to produce pleasure in oneself. I raise an objection that there is good reason to think pleasure is intrinsically good. I reply by discussing how Ross could deny that there is a prima facie duty to promote what is intrinsically good.

Title: Type Ia Supernova
Class: PHYS 3180
Date: December 20, 2011
Keywords: Type Ia Supernova, Distance, Chandrasekhar Limit, Standard Candle, Astronomy, Science
Abstract: Due to their uniformity and our knowledge of the Chandrasekhar limit, type Ia supernovae make great calibrated luminosity sources and enable astronomers to compute fairly accurate distances to the galaxies in which they are found. In this paper I describe supernovae, discuss the various types, describe how type Ia supernovae are identified, and discuss current ideas of how a type Ia supernova occurs. Then I derive and discuss the Chandrasekhar limit. Lastly, I discuss how type Ia supernovae are utilized to determine distances. 

Title: Magnetohydrodynamics
Class: PHYS 3180
Date: December 20, 2011
Keywords: Magnetohydrodynamics, Physics, Molecular Clouds, Star-Forming Cores, Equations, Alfven Waves, Turbulence, Super-Criticality, Sub-Criticality, Ambipolar Diffusion, Magnetic Braking
Abstract: In this paper I concentrate on magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) and its role in the physics of molecular clouds and star-forming cores. I begin with a discussion of what MHD is and introduce the MHD equations. Next I discuss Alfven waves. Then I discuss MHD turbulence. I illuminate the difference between magnetic super-criticality and sub-criticality. Lastly, I discuss ambipolar diffusion and magnetic braking. 

Title: Short Essay Two – Clavius
Class: PHIL 2610
Date: November 23, 2011
Keywords: Clavius, Copernican, Ptolemaic, Sun, Earth, Observational Equivalence, Systematic Dependency
Abstract: In this paper I argue that Christoph Clavius’ ad hoc theory argument against the Copernican system is wrong. I begin by interpreting Clavius’ argument. Next I put his argument in premise-conclusion form and explain my reasoning for each premise. I argue it is irrelevant which theory came first in relation to determining which theory is true (against premise (8)). I reply that the order of theories matters when one needs to break a tie. Finally, I object that systematic dependencies are a more important quality when deciding which theory wins a tie. 

Title: Short Essay One – Homocentric vs. Ptolemaic
Class: PHIL 2610
Date: October 26, 2011
Keywords: Homocentric, Ptolemaic, Cosmos, Science, Astronomy, Planets, Epicycle, Deferent, Eccentric, Equant, Retrogression
Abstract: In this paper I concentrate on the primary details of two astronomical systems: the homocentric spheres model, and the Ptolemaic model. I argue that the Ptolemaic model is superior to the homocentric spheres model. I begin by explaining how the homocentric spheres model accounts for the motion of the planets and then go on to explain its primary advantage. Next I explain how the Ptolemaic model accounts for the motions of the planets, focusing on the major and minor epicycles, deferent, eccentric, and equant. Then I explain its primary advantage and disadvantage. Lastly, I argue for the superiority of the Ptolemaic model with arguments involving its ability to better explain observations, ability to fit with the cosmology at the time, and flexibility. 

Title: The Arbitrary Act – Arneson on the “Smart” Theory of Moral Responsibility
Class: PHIL 4460
Date: April 10, 2011
Keywords: Responsibility, Morals, Philosophy, Causal Thesis, Free Will, Determinism, Arbitrary, Justification
Abstract: In this paper I argue that we are not justified in holding people responsible for what they do. To begin, I provide an exposition of the causal thesis and the “Smart” theory of moral responsibility. I object that there is no difference between someone who did an action and someone who did not if they are both predetermined and therefore, we are not justified in holding someone responsible for their actions. I reply that commonsense intuition requires an act in order to hold someone responsible and explain how it might be the case that requiring an action for responsibility could end up producing greater good in the majority of cases. In the end I conclude with a short explanation why I think my argument has succeeded. 

Title: Barry’s Equality of Outcome Argument – Prima Facie Equality
Class: PHIL 4460
Date: February 9, 2011
Keywords: Equality, Primary Goods, Utilitarianism, Arbitrary, Distribution
Abstract: In this paper I argue that Brian Barry’s argument fails to provide a prima facie case for equality of outcome. To begin, I provide an exposition of Barry’s equality of outcome argument and briefly explain primary goods. I deny Barry’s fifth premise that morally arbitrary factors should not affect outcomes. I provide the response that the equal distribution of primary goods is a goal and does not necessitate doing the impossible. Finally, I object to Barry’s leap from the premises to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case for equality of outcome by providing reasons against fundamentally valuing equality. 

Title: The Unwanted Child – Changeling
Class: ICEL 2400
Date: November 30, 2010
Keywords: Changeling, Unwanted Child, Iceland, Folk Tales, Huldufolk, Faeries, Elves
Abstract: In this paper, I present arguments and evidence in support of the idea that folk tales of changelings arose out of exaggerated accounts of unwanted children with physical and mental abnormalities. To accomplish this, I discuss changeling folk tales, the typical Icelander’s standard of living and encounters with disease, children that were borne out or exposed, and consider additional reasons for viewing changeling folk tales as exaggerated accounts of unwanted children. Lastly, I relate these stories with ethical questions in the present day. 

Title: Final Exam – Logical vs. Intuitive Morals
Class: PHIL 2740
Date: June 24, 2010
Keywords: Logical, Intuitive, Morals
Abstract: In this paper I put forward reasons to support logical reasoning and explain why it makes sense not to support and follow one’s moral sentiments and intuitions. I discuss many thought experiments and give real world examples, practical arguments, and theoretical arguments in support of logical reasoning. I turn arguments in support of intuitions to support logical reasoning instead. I judge the possibility we will be so mired in moral sentiments and strong feelings that we will render ourselves unable to rationally understand, criticize, or revise our existing moral understandings and practices to be a greater threat to humanity. In support of this judgment I look at religion as an example of the negative possibilities following intuitions and moral sentiments can lead to. Next I discuss some reasons people may fear logical arguments, including the idea that many people fail to fully comprehend what many logical arguments actually support and conclude. I discuss the effect of psychological leanings as a cause for reluctance towards logical arguments and how those leanings can lead to unsupported intuitions. I discuss some of the likely harms that could arise from following moral sentiments and intuitions (e.g. increased suffering).  Lastly, I discuss the slippery slope argument as support for logical reasoning. 
​
Note: This paper was written in a time limited setting with minimal editing. Readers should keep this in mind when evaluating the writing. 

An Important Note

All papers linked are my intellectual property. You may share, but you do not have permission to modify them.