Epistemic Goals of Scientific Inquiry: An Explanation Through Virtue Epistemology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting, and the treatment is generally correct. I would suggest publication. There were no examples where someone should be very critical. Perhaps any possible improvements will depend first on the author(s).


Das Thema ist interessant und die Bearbeitung ist im allgemein richtig. Ich würde die Veröffentlichung vorschlagen. Es gaben keine Beispiele, wobei jemand sehr kritisch sein sollte. Vielleicht werde eine mögliche Verbesserung zuerst von/vom Schriftsteller/n abhängig.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is generally correct. Improvements are always important as well.

 

Es ist im allgemein richtig. Verbesserungen sind auch immer wichtig.

Author Response

Comments 1: The topic is interesting, and the treatment is generally correct. I would suggest publication. There were no examples where someone should be very critical. Perhaps any possible improvements will depend first on the author(s)

Response 1: The reviewer's comments do not contain specific requirements for revisions. 

Comments 2: It is generally correct. Improvements are always important as well.

Response 2: The text of the manuscript has been further checked in accordance with the journal requirements. No language errors were detected. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to integrate virtue epistemology and the philosophy of science by carefully analyzing the relation of reliabilist and responsibilist approaches. The following discussion thoroughly distinguishes between different levels and facets of intellectual virtue. Even though the essay does not provide a final solution for the posed questions, the argumentation is thought-provoking. The article elaborates on relevant research problems in contemporary approaches to scientific knowledge. The paper is concise, the reasoning is clear, and the provided references can noticeably contextualize the research objectives.

Let me have two minor remarks. In line 368, the preposition “in” is incorrectly italicized before the title of the referred work. I am unsure if the bibliographic references are in the format the journal expects.

Author Response

Comments 1: Let me have two minor remarks. In line 368, the preposition “in” is incorrectly italicized before the title of the referred work. I am unsure if the bibliographic references are in the format the journal expects.

Response 1: Agree. Italics corrected in line 371. The formatting of sources has been checked in accordance with the journal standard. All citations are in square brackets. Pages in direct quotations are given in parentheses. The list of references is additionally checked. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper argues for the integration of so-called virtue epistemology into the body of established scientific practice in order to broaden our views on the various paths that the community of professionals uses to acquire new knowledge and collectively validate it. Although my own view on virtue epistemology tends to be reticent about its excessive emphasis on the role of the subject, which could undermine to some extent the objectivity that constitutes the ideal of scientific research, I consider that the present paper is well argued, presents an interesting view of the problem and addresses issues that deserve to be debated.

Author Response

Comments 1: This paper argues for the integration of so-called virtue epistemology into the body of established scientific practice in order to broaden our views on the various paths that the community of professionals uses to acquire new knowledge and collectively validate it. Although my own view on virtue epistemology tends to be reticent about its excessive emphasis on the role of the subject, which could undermine to some extent the objectivity that constitutes the ideal of scientific research, I consider that the present paper is well argued, presents an interesting view of the problem and addresses issues that deserve to be debated.

Response 1: Agree. The reviewer's comments does not contain any critical comments requiring corrections.