Overview
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?