Reference no: EM133480247

1. Watch these

In which Justin McBrayer explains why the fact opinion distinction, as taught in K through 12 ( and sometimes after that) is a problem.

What is McBrayer's view of how we should think of facts and opinions? Take the time to use the definitions he offers in the discussions. Explain his argument for thinking of the terms in the manner that he thinks is correct. Then, imagine that McBrayer were to consider the argument for relativism that James Rachels critiques. Here, you should present the argument, but not the evaluation from Rachels. What would McBrayer say about the argument for relativism? Specifically, if McBrayer were to evaluate the argument in question, how would he use the distinction between facts and beliefs to do so?

Cite all the texts you employ. This is at 4 to 5 page paper, though you may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and
defense, use course concepts.

2. What is William Clifford's primary argument to show that we are not entitled to hold beliefs under certain conditions? What if I live alone in the wilderness and I form a belief via one of the fallacious arguments that we studied in Module 2? Would Clifford still hold that I am not entitled to my belief? Justify your judgment. Explain what the relevant fallacies are as you consider what Clifford would say about them.

Cite all the texts you employ. This is a 4 to 5 page paper, though you may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and defense,
use course concepts.

1. Does this paper identify have a clear thesis?

2. Does this paper contain only relevant information? Are the citations completed properly?

3. Does the paper attribute the correct view to the philosophers in question?

4. Is/are the philosopher's view presented with the appropriate level of detail?

(For example, does the author explain concepts and arguments in a tight manner, or are the arguments and concepts merely sketched?)

5. Does the author present a clear argument in his/her discussion?

6. Does the paper cohere? Or, is the paper a hodgepodge of disparate ideas?

7. Does the conclusion tie together the different phases of the paper? Or, is the conclusion a non-sequitur?

8. Are the spelling, grammar and syntax on the college level?

9. Does the author make appropriate and accurate use of course concepts in constructing his or her discussion?

Intangibles: Is the paper on the assigned topic? Is it the author's own work?