Abstract: This paper investigates the extent to which an interventionist account of causal explanation is helpful to virtue epistemology. It argues that such an account helps a modest version of virtue epistemology overcome some very serious objections to its earlier versions raised by e.g. Krist Vaesen and Michael Levin. However, an interventionist version of robust virtue epistemology is untenable, not least since it stands without resources satisfactorily to explain why knowledge is absent in certain Gettier cases.  Since virtue epistemology needs the kind of sophistication offered by interventionism in order to overcome very fundamental objections, this paper provides a new argument to the conclusion that robust virtue epistemology is in deep trouble, even if the case for a modest virtue epistemology is strengthened. 

Hosted by the Research Unit for Epistemology, Metaphysics, and Philosophy of Cognition