Abstract

ABSTRACT Philosophy lags behind the social sciences and life sciences in terms of interdisciplinary co-authorship, with 2024 data showing that about one paper in six by philosophers can be classified as interdisciplinary, compared with one in three (or more) in the life and social sciences (OpenAlex, 2025).1 This paper examines how four key epistemic vices: (i) closed-mindedness, (ii) insouciance, (iii) arrogance, and (iv) complacent incuriosity might play a contributory role in systematically blunting philosophers’ appetite for collaboration. We also discuss how these vices can interact with systemic forces – prestige hierarchies, perverse professional incentives, and ‘publish-or-perish’ norms – in ways that could further undermine cross-disciplinary collaboration. The paper predominantly focuses on vices, but it explores how these vices can plausibly interact with systemic factors. We co-opt the concepts of epistemic trespassing, silos, and my-side bias as three additional phenomena possibly contributing to a lack of interdisciplinarity. Ultimately, we contend that systemic pressures set the stage, but epistemic vices compound these obstacles – limiting rigorous, responsible interdisciplinary inquiry. Our actionable proposals are based on our analysis of the vices and the relationships those vices plausibly have with systemic factors. Explicating these interconnected factors, we aim to forge deeper engagement with other fields, cultivating a richer and more holistic philosophical practice.