For this paper you have three options:
1) Write an essay arguing for or against either of these authors: Goldman or Feldman and Conee. Basically, you can point out any flaw in their argumentation and illustrate how that is a flaw.
2) Write an essay that weighs in on which one of Goldman or Feldman and Conee provides a better account of epistemic justification. Justify why you think that is. What makes their account superior to the other.
3) Argue for condition(s) of what an account of justification might need to consider. This is in light of possible dissatisfaction of the accounts discussed in class. Is there something that these papers are missing? Why do you think that that is important?
The maximum word-limit is 1000 words excluding bibliography and footnotes. Please indicate the amount of words you’ve used.
A paper must have a thesis in mind, or a claim that you’d have to defend. Do not try to be overly ambitious in your paper. You have the freedom to use external resources, but this is not required. For (1) You may argue against an author’s main argument or you may argue on a smaller point that the author may have slightly taken for granted. You may look at the bad implications of her theory, for example, and developing that is sufficient for the paper. This means that having a positive proposal, such as “here is an alternative view of justification”, might be too much to fit into 1000-words. Remember that part of the work
