Virtue epistemology is a current philosophical approach to epistemology that stresses the importance of intellectual and specifically epistemic virtues. Virtue epistemology evaluates knowledge according to the properties of the persons who hold beliefs in addition to or instead of the properties of the propositions and beliefs. Some advocates of virtue epistemology also adhere to theories of virtue ethics, while others see only loose analogy between virtue in ethics and virtue in epistemology.^[who?]

Intellectual virtue has been a subject of philosophy since the work of Aristotle, but virtue epistemology is a development in the modern analytic tradition. It is characterized by efforts to solve problems of special concern to modern epistemology, such as justification and reliabilism, by focusing on the knower as agent in a manner similar to how virtue ethics focuses on moral agents rather than moral acts.

The area has a parallel in the theory of Unity of knowledge and action proposed by Chinese philosopher Wang Yangming.

Virtue epistemology was partly inspired by a recent renewal of interest in virtue concepts among moral philosophers, and partly as a response to the intractability of the competing analyses of knowledge that arose in response to Edmund Gettier. Ernest Sosa introduced intellectual virtue into contemporary epistemological discussion in a 1980 paper called "The Raft and the Pyramid".^[1]

Sosa argued that an appeal to intellectual virtue could resolve the conflict between foundationalists and coherentists over the structure of epistemic justification. Foundationalism holds that beliefs are founded or based on other beliefs in a hierarchy, similar to the bricks in the structure of a pyramid. Coherentism, on the other hand, uses the metaphor of a raft in which all beliefs are not tied down by foundations but instead are interconnected due to the logical relationships between each belief. Sosa found a flaw in each of these schools of epistemology, in both cases having to do with the relationship between belief and perception.

Coherentism only allows for justification based on logical relations between all the beliefs within a system of beliefs. However, because perceptual beliefs may not have many logical ties with other beliefs in the system, the coherentist account of knowledge cannot accommodate the importance normally attributed to perceptual information. On the other hand, foundationalism arguably encounters a problem^{[further explanation needed]} when it attempts to describe how foundational beliefs relate to the sensory experiences that support them.

Coherentism and foundationalism developed as responses to the problems with the "traditional" account of knowledge (as justified true belief) developed by Edmund Gettier in 1963.^[2] As a result of Gettier's counterexamples, competing theories were developed, but the disputes between coherentists and foundationalists proved to be intractable. Sosa's paper suggested that virtue may resolve such disputes.^[3]

Virtue epistemology replaces formulaic expressions for apprehending knowledge, such as "S knows that p", by amending these formulas with virtue theory applied to intellect, where virtue then becomes the fulcrum for assessing^{[clarification needed]} potential candidates of "knowledge". This amendation raises problems of its own, however. If the same uncertainty about accuracy in creating a formula for testing knowledge equally applies to the authenticity of virtue, then one cannot know if the target virtue is credible.^{[clarification needed]} Some virtue epistemologists use reliabilism as a basis for belief justification, stressing reliable functioning of the intellect.^[1][4][5]

Virtue epistemology is consistent with some of contextualism. Several areas of contextual epistemology attack the problem of knowledge from an objective standpoint. Virtue epistemology attempts to simplify the analysis of knowledge by replacing certain abstractions involved in the pursuit^{[clarification needed]} of the highest^[how?] level of knowledge with flexible and contextual instances^{[clarification needed]}. Specifically, it leaves room for cognitive relativism. This degree of reliability^{[clarification needed]} is not constant; it can change depending on the context. Under this view, a well-functioning intellectual faculty is a necessary condition for the formation of knowledge. This differs from other areas of epistemology because it takes the state of an individual's intellect into account. As a result of this, social context also has the ability to alter knowledge. Social contexts change over time, making it necessary for beliefs and knowledge to change with it.^{[example needed]}

Virtue epistemology, similarly to virtue ethics, is based on the intellectual qualities of the individual as opposed to the quality of the belief; virtue epistemology is person-based, rather than belief-based. Consequently, virtue epistemology can stress "epistemic responsibility"—in which an individual is held responsible for the virtue of their knowledge-gathering faculties.

For example, Massimo Pigliucci applies virtue epistemology to critical thinking and suggests the virtuous individual will consider the following:

• non-dismissive consideration of arguments
• charitable interpretation of opposing arguments
• awareness of one's own presuppositions and potential for being mistaken
• consultation of expert knowledge
• reliability of source material
• knowledge of what one is talking about rather than merely repeating others' opinions.^[6]

Virtue epistemologists differ in the role they believe virtue to play: eliminative virtue replaces epistemic concepts like knowledge and justification with intellectual virtue and intellectual vice, while non-eliminative virtue epistemology retains a role for such traditional concepts and uses virtue to provide substantive explanation of them.

Virtue epistemologists differ in what they believe epistemic virtues to be. Some accounts are Aristotelian, drawing a relationship between intellectual virtue and character in a similar way to the way moral virtue is related to character. "Weak" virtue epistemology, on the other hand, doesn't require any particular commitment or cultivation of intellectual virtue. Abrol Fairweather argues that "weak" virtue epistemologists "merely [use] virtue theory as a novel lexicon for expressing an independent epistemic theory".^[7]

Some virtue epistemologists favor the "virtue reliabilist" account of virtues as reliably functioning cognitive faculties, and others favor a "virtue responsibilist" account in which the responsible epistemic conduct of the agent plays a key role.

Some varieties of virtue epistemology that contain normative elements, such as virtue responsibilism, can provide a unified framework of normativity and value. Others, such as Sosa's account, can circumvent Cartesian skepticism with the necessity of externalism interacting with internalism. In this same vein, and because of the inherent flexibility and social nature of some of types of virtue epistemology, social conditioning and influence can be understood within an epistemological framework and explored. This flexibility and connection between internal and external makes virtue epistemology more accessible.^[14]

One criticism^[15] of virtue epistemology has focused upon its characterization of human cognition as grounded in stable character dispositions (e.g. the disposition to use reliable faculties, or one's excellent character traits construed as dispositions). As discussed by a parallel criticism leveled at virtue ethics,^[16] virtue theories, whether moral or epistemic, typically consider character traits as stable across time, and efficacious as explanatory reasons for persons behaving and thinking as they do. However, this supposition has been challenged by the "situationist critique" in psychology, which argues that human epistemic character changes depending on context, even when that change is epistemically irrelevant. Thus, irrelevant differences in a situation can prompt a drastic change in cognitive behavior.

Reliabilists might characterize this as effecting a drop in reliable functioning, whereas responsibilists would see these variations as negating one's excellent cognitive character. It is therefore argued that virtue theorists should either amend their conception of human psychology to accommodate this or explain how the results of situationist psychological research do not contradict their theory.

• Unity of knowledge and action