Pick ONE of the TWO following options to respond to, either Option (a) or Option (b). Your essay will need to
answer all of the sub-questions under that option, which will likely take at least 4 paragraphs.
Remember to cite all sources, including Lectures and the Textbook, as part of good scholarship.
Option (a) Explain the differences between Goldman’s causal theory of knowledge (not reliabilism) and
Nozick’s theory of knowledge.
What common problem are both Goldman and Nozick trying to resolve?
What do their views have in common?
What does Goldman’s theory argue for? What arguments are given in favor of it, either by Goldman or by
What does Nozick’s theory argue? What arguments are given in favor of it, either by Nozick or by Feldman?
In what ways do the two theories differ?
What objections to Goldman and to Nozick does Feldman raise?
In your judgement, is either non-evidentialist theory better than evidentialism? Why or why not?
Option (b) Explain Plantinga’s notion of ‘Warrant’. Be sure to answer all of the following sub-questions,
although you need not answer them in the order given below.
According to Plantinga (or Feldman), what are the conditions you need to meet in order to have warrant (or
justification) on the proper function theory?
How does reliabilism relate to the proper function theory?
How does warrant (or justification) relate to the notion of proper function on Plantinga’s view?
What is a ‘proper function’? Why does Plantinga believe we should think it exists?
What arguments does Plantinga offer for his position?
What objections to Proper Function theory does Feldman raise?
In your judgement, are there any arguments that could be given against Proper Function theory that Feldman
doesn’t raise? Are there any arguments for Proper Function theory that Feldman doesn’t bring up?
isen to power through royal favours and did not have the steadfastness” necessary for a man of his rank. Furthermore, Vargas Ponce suggests that when “truth reveals our history, it would show the affable, officious Gravina as one of the causes of the moral decadence in the Spanish Navy”. Vargas Ponce proposes that the lack of proper leadership as the reason for a dysfunctional navy. Without a proper system of management over a ship through its officers, no coordinated attack could take place. For the British, quality officers permitted the fleet at Trafalgar to work the ships at maximum efficiency. Tactics were not decisive, on the contrary, a decisive factor was the dedication and skill displayed by British officers. Put simply, French officers could not match the British. In conclusion, the battle of Trafalgar was a necessity for the British. British trade was being contested, the Franco-Spanish fleet was on course to converge with the ‘Grande Armée’, and Britain was in dire need of fresh ships. The British fleet did use tactics as a mean to attack the French, sailing in two columns, launching perpendicularly at the French however, question arises as to whether Nelson’s tactics themselves contributed to the victory? Had it been the French who had used the exact same tactics as the British, the French would have been indisputably pulverized due to an inability for the columns to return fire before they crossed the enemy line. In my opinion, any capable British admiral could have led an equally decisive victory over the French. Factors that extended beyond mere planning and tactics such as the wind conditions, the expectation of British sailors to win, and superior fire rate of the British would have led to a similar outcome. All in all, overshadowed by other key factors, tactics did not play a vital role in the Battle of Trafalgar.>GET ANSWER