This is the whole prompt (and grading rubric below): 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.
you may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and
defense, use course concepts. (Course concepts found in “Reading 2”
2. Does this paper contain only relevant information? Are the
citations completed properly? (5%) 3. Does the paper attribute the
correct view to the philosophers in question? (10%) 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?)
(25%) 5. Does the author present a clear argument in his/her
discussion? (15%) 6. Does the paper cohere? Or, is the paper a
hodgepodge of disparate ideas? (10%) 7. Does the conclusion tie
together the different phases of the paper? Or, is the conclusion a
non-sequitur? (5%) 8. Are the spelling, grammar and syntax on the
college level? (5%) 9. Does the author make appropriate and accurate
use of course concepts in constructing his or her discussion? (20%)
Intangibles: Is the paper on the assigned topic? Is it the author’s
own work?