PHIL 450A:  Checklist for Peer Review on Paper #1.


            This checklist is not meant to cover everything to include in your draft.  It describes the minimum that you should include.  I expect you to be creative and go beyond this minimum. 

            When you are commenting on a draft in Peer Review, one of your roles is to make sure that the paper you are commenting on satisfies these minimum conditions.  Please feel free to make additional comments for improving the paper.


Item                                                                                                     Draft #1      Draft #2

0. (a) Has a good introductory paragraph (or two) that gives an overview of the paper.  (Explains empirical justification.) 



(b) Makes good use of examples in the paper.






1. Foundationalism: 



(a) Explains what Foundationalism is.



(b) Explains what makes Chisholm's account foundationalist with cites.



(c) Explain the boundary problem and how it applies to Chisholm's account.






2.  Coherentism



(a) Explains what coherentism is.



(b) Explains what makes Dancy's account coherentist with cites.



(c) Explains the input problem and how it applies to Dancy's account.






3. Foundherentism



(a) Explains Haack's account of the double aspect of justification.



(b) Explains why Haack's account is not foundationalist.  (Hint:  Are there any foundational beliefs on her account?)



(c) Explains how, on Haack's account, experience can have content without there being any basic beliefs.



(d) Gives an example to illustrate how the content of experiential C-evidence can help to justify perceptual beliefs.



(e) Provides cites for all attributions to Haack in parts (a)-(d) above.







Remember that the standard for evaluating an explanation is whether a reasonably intelligent person who had not taken an epistemology course would be able to understand it.