I've revised a paper I've written on epistemological disjunctivism: here.
* I defend the view that the reasons and evidence provided by veridical experience are better than those provided by hallucination.
* I defend the view that only beliefs in the good case are justified.
* I explain why these views do not require experiential disjunctivism and address McDowell's argument to the contrary.
* I use terribly unfair rhetoric having to do with the Innocence Project to beat up on internalists.
Comments and suggestions would be very much appreciated.