, Volume 194, Issue 6, pp 2147–2174 | Cite as

A robust enough virtue epistemology

  • Fernando Broncano-Berrocal


What is the nature of knowledge? A popular answer to that long-standing question comes from robust virtue epistemology, whose key idea is that knowing is just a matter of succeeding cognitively—i.e., coming to believe a proposition truly—due to an exercise of cognitive ability. Versions of robust virtue epistemology further developing and systematizing this idea offer different accounts of the relation that must hold between an agent’s cognitive success and the exercise of her cognitive abilities as well as of the very nature of those abilities. This paper aims to give a new robust virtue epistemological account of knowledge based on a different understanding of the nature and structure of the kind of abilities that give rise to knowledge.


Robust virtue epistemology Ability Cognitive ability Aptness Safety 



Thanks to Chris Kelp, two anonymous reviewers for Synthese, and the audiences of the LEG seminar (Leuven), the University of Copenhagen, and the Virtue Epistemology Conference (Leuven).


  1. Blouw, P., Buckwalter, W., & Turri, J. (2016). Gettier cases: A taxonomy. In R. Borges, C. de Almeida, & P. Klein (Eds.), Explaining knowledge: New essays on the Gettier problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bogardus, T. (2014). Knowledge under threat. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88, 289–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogardus, T., & Marxen, C. (2014). Yes, safety is in danger. Philosophia, 42, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broncano-Berrocal, F. (2014a). Anti-luck (too weak) virtue epistemology. Erkenntnis, 79(4), 733–754.Google Scholar
  5. Broncano-Berrocal, F. (2014b). Is safety in danger? Philosophia, 42(1), 63–81.Google Scholar
  6. Chrisman, M. (2012). The normative evaluation of belief and the aspectual classification of belief and knowledge attributions. Journal of Philosophy, 109, 588–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fara, M. (2008). Masked abilities and compatibilism. Mind, 117, 843–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldman, A. I. (1976). Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 73, 771–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldman, A. I. (1979). What is justified belief? In G. Pappas (Ed.), Justification and knowledge (pp. 1–23). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Graham, P. J. (2012). Epistemic entitlement. Noûs, 46, 449–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greco, J. (2000). Putting skeptics in their place: The nature of skeptical arguments and their role in philosophical inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greco, J. (2010). Achieving knowledge: A virtue-theoretic account of epistemic normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greco, J. (2012). A (different) virtue epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawley, K. (2003). Success and Knowledge-How. American Philosophical Quarterly, 40, 19–31.Google Scholar
  15. Haddock, A., Millar, A., & Pritchard, D. (2010). The nature and value of Knowledge: Three investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Heil, J. (2005). Dispositions. Synthese, 144, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  18. Kallestrup, J., & Pritchard, D. (2014). Virtue epistemology and epistemic twin earth. European Journal of Philosophy, 22, 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelp, C. (2013). Knowledge: The safe-apt view. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91, 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lackey, J. (2007). Why we don’t deserve credit for everything we know. Synthese, 158, 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lackey, J. (2009). Knowledge and credit. Philosophical Studies, 142, 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maier, J. (2013). The agentive modalities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 87, 113–134.Google Scholar
  23. McKinnon, R. (2014). You make your own luck. Metaphilosophy, 45, 558–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Millikan, R. (1984). Language, thought, and other biological categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Palermos, S. O. (2013). Could reliability naturally imply safety? European Journal of Philosophy,. doi: 10.1111/ejop.12046.
  26. Pritchard, D. (2006). A defence of quasi-reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. Philosophica, 78, 13–28.Google Scholar
  27. Pritchard, D. (2010). Cognitive ability and the extended cognition thesis. Synthese, 175, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pritchard, D. (2012). Anti-luck virtue epistemology. Journal of Philosophy, 109, 247–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Proust, J. (2013). The philosophy of metacognition: Mental agency and self-awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sosa, E. (1991). Knowledge in perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sosa, E. (2007). A virtue epistemology: Apt belief and reflective knowledge (Vol. I). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sosa, E. (2009). Reflective knowledge: Apt belief and reflective knowledge (Vol. II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sosa, E. (2011). Knowing full well. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sosa, E. (2015). Judgment and agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turri, J. (2011). Manifest failure: The Gettier problem solved. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11, 1–11.Google Scholar
  36. Turri, J. (2016). Knowledge as achievement, more or less. In M. A. Fernández (Ed.), Performance epistemology (pp. 124–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Vihvelin, K. (2004). Free will demystified: A dispositional account. Philosophical Topics, 32, 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zagzebski, L. (1994). The inescapability of Gettier problems. Philosophical Quarterly, 44, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Logic and Analytic PhilosophyLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations