A Critique of BonJour's A Priori Justification of Induction

In this paper I respond to epistemologist Laurence BonJour's a priori justification of induction. There should be enough info for those unfamiliar with both the problem of induction and BonJour's particular response to understand the interchange of ideas that is going on. Some familiarity with philosophical concepts is required, however, so go here if you need some terminology explained: http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/index.htm

On a side-note, BonJour teaches at the University of Washington, which is where I attend school.

Here is the paper, it's about 6 1/2 pages long: http://students.washington.edu/mainwt/BonJourPaper.htm

A Semi-Full Critique of Feinberg

In one of the posts below is a short-hand critique of Joel Feinberg's article "The Nature and Value of Rights" from the Patrick Hayden text on the Philosophy of Human Rights. In the link provided here, I develop the critique into a 12-page paper. Basically I say that there is no way to make sense of Nowheresville and have it be a useful thought experiment, therefore we should pitch it. While I think that I make a good point or two, overall I wouldn't rate the paper that highly. Part of the problem is that I had to apply the critique to an actual case example, so it made moving from the purely conceptual realm to the real world a bit choppy. I certainly did not have the space to give a step-by-step argument for how I would transition from the conceptual to the actual, and I think the paper suffers for that reason. Plus I had to drop what I thought was a pretty good critique in order to make the paper a reasonable length, so that was too bad. Nonetheless, it is not without its merit and potential to generate comments.

http://students.washington.edu/mainwt/A%20Critique%20of%20Feinberg.htm