Socio-structural explanations can support, rather than undermine, vice epistemology

22 Dec 2025

UP Los Baños

Epistemic structuralism is a school of thought that says society greatly affects how we gain knowledge and understanding. This can be antithetical to the emerging field of vice epistemology, which mainly studies character traits and other similar character-based factors that make gaining knowledge and understanding difficult. In a nutshell, extreme epistemic structuralism would say that vice epistemology is useless because society is more influential in the way we think and inquire than character traits. In application, this means that when you make an error, it is more because of social influences than who you are or what your character is.

Some vice epistemologists have argued that vice epistemology and structuralism can co-exist, but the exact details of such a synthesis is still not clear. In this paper, I discuss how a well-developed vice structural explanation can be done. In essence, I propose that one should look carefully into contexts to determine the ratio between character traits and social factors in a given situation. This can be relevant when we ask: who or what is to blame when we make mistakes in our inquiries? I end this paper by briefly noting a few crucial issues that could be further looked into.

The article is the first sustained analysis of the structuralist challenge to the emerging field of vice epistemology. Vice epistemology is the study of intellectual vices: character traits, ways of thinking, attitudes, processes, and habits that obstruct or prevent the attainment of epistemic goods such as knowledge and understanding. The roots of this philosophical subfield stretch all the way back to Ancient Greek times, but contemporary vice epistemology was only formalized as a subfield in around 2015-16, making it a novel and emerging field in philosophy. The “structuralist challenge” is the idea that vice epistemological explanations of epistemic behavior and epistemic outcomes are not as fruitful, important or useful as socio-structural explanations. This article argues that vice epistemology can be aided, not undermined, by socio-structural explanations.

Author: Nicolo M. Masakayan (Department of Social Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Los Baños)

Read the full paper: https://www.pdcnet.org/jpr/content/jpr_2024_0049_0019_0030

Photo by cottonbro studio from Pexels

Socio-structural explanations can support, rather than undermine, vice epistemology

Epistemic structuralism is a school of thought that says society greatly affects how we gain knowledge and understanding. This can be antithetical to the emerging field of vice epistemology, which mainly studies character traits and other similar character-based factors that make gaining knowledge and understanding difficult. In a nutshell, extreme epistemic structuralism would say that vice epistemology is useless because society is more influential in the way we think and inquire than character traits. In application, this means that when you make an error, it is more because of social influences than who you are or what your character is.

Some vice epistemologists have argued that vice epistemology and structuralism can co-exist, but the exact details of such a synthesis is still not clear. In this paper, I discuss how a well-developed vice structural explanation can be done. In essence, I propose that one should look carefully into contexts to determine the ratio between character traits and social factors in a given situation. This can be relevant when we ask: who or what is to blame when we make mistakes in our inquiries? I end this paper by briefly noting a few crucial issues that could be further looked into.

The article is the first sustained analysis of the structuralist challenge to the emerging field of vice epistemology. Vice epistemology is the study of intellectual vices: character traits, ways of thinking, attitudes, processes, and habits that obstruct or prevent the attainment of epistemic goods such as knowledge and understanding. The roots of this philosophical subfield stretch all the way back to Ancient Greek times, but contemporary vice epistemology was only formalized as a subfield in around 2015-16, making it a novel and emerging field in philosophy. The “structuralist challenge” is the idea that vice epistemological explanations of epistemic behavior and epistemic outcomes are not as fruitful, important or useful as socio-structural explanations. This article argues that vice epistemology can be aided, not undermined, by socio-structural explanations.

Author: Nicolo M. Masakayan (Department of Social Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Los Baños)

Read the full paper: https://www.pdcnet.org/jpr/content/jpr_2024_0049_0019_0030

Photo by cottonbro studio from Pexels