Hilary Greaves (born 29 September 1978) is a British philosopher. She is currently a professor at the University of Oxford and the director of the Global Priorities Institute.
Greaves earned a BA in philosophy and physics from Oxford and a PhD in philosophy from Rutgers. Her doctoral thesis, completed under the supervision of Frank Arntzenius, was “Spacetime symmetries and the CPT theorem”.[1] Prior to her current professorship, she held appointments at Merton and Somerville Colleges.
Greaves’ current work is on issues related to global priorities research. Her research interests include moral philosophy (including foundational issues in consequentialism, interpersonal aggregation, population ethics, and moral uncertainty), formal epistemology, and the philosophy of physics.
Further reading
Greaves, Hilary (2020) Evidence, cluelessness, and the long term, Effective Altruism Forum, November 1.
Greaves, Hilary & John Cusbert (2021) Comparing existence and non-existence, in Joe Roussos & Paul Bowman (eds.) Studies on Climate Ethics and Future Generations Vol. 3, Stockholm: Institute for Futures Studies, pp. 163–196.
Wiblin, Robert & Keiran Harris (2018) Philosophy Prof Hilary Greaves on moral cluelessness, population ethics, probability within a multiverse, & harnessing the brainpower of academia to tackle the most important research questions, 80,000 Hours, October 23.
External links
Hilary Greaves. Personal homepage.
- ^
Greaves, Hilary (2008) Spacetime Symmetries and the CPT Theorem, PhD thesis, Rutgers University.
(Note that this article reproduces parts of the corresponding Wikipedia entry. While as a general rule I believe we shouldn’t copy content from Wikipedia, this case is exceptional, since I myself wrote that entry. This is also the case for a few other entries, though I currently don’t remember which.)
What’s the reason for the general recommendation against copying from Wikipedia?
The main reasons are that often I would expect Wikipedia articles to not be a particularly good fit (because they have different evidential standards, because we want to emphasize the way the topic relates to EA); that sometimes their articles are low quality, are biased, or both (though this would provide a reason only in these specific cases); that Wikipedia requires (I believe) the display of a notice in articles that reuse its content; and that I feel this won’t look good if we do it regularly.
Do you think we should consider using their content more?