PHIL 450A:  Checklist for Peer Review on Paper #2.


            Note that it is not necessary and not even desirable for you to write your papers in the order of the items on this checklist.  However you order them, all the following items should be included in your draft.  This che:cklist 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                                                                                                     Paper #1      Paper #2

0. (a) Has a good introductory paragraph (or two) that gives an overview of the paper.  (Makes it clear that the paper is about epistemic justification.) 



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






1. (a) Steup:  Cites for all attributions (at least 3 cites.)



(b) Explains "recognizable on reflection".



(c) Gives examples of J-factors that Steup believes are recognizable on reflection.



(d) Explains access internalism.



(e) Explains why Steup's account is access internalist.






2.  Goldman:  (a) Cites for all attributions (at least 3 cites).



(b) Explains unconditional and conditional reliability



(c) Gives examples of processes that produce justified beliefs and processes that do not.



(d) Explains why Goldman's account is not access internalist, and therefore why it is externalist.






3. Identifies a good positive reason for favoring access internalism about justification.






4.  Identifies a good positive reason for favoring externalism about justification.




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.