The Wikle

What is the epistemic crisis?: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
WikleBot (talk | contribs)
180 edits
m Updated page with AI-generated answer [automated edit by WikleBot]
Line 1: Line 1:
''Written by AI. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources section. When the sources section is updated this article will regenerate.''
''Written by AI. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources section. When the sources section is updated this article will regenerate.''


=== What is the “epistemic crisis”? ===
The epistemic crisis refers to a deep, society-wide breakdown in the systems that create, vet, and distribute reliable knowledge. It is marked by falling trust in traditional authorities, growing doubts about what is true, and a proliferation of mutually incompatible “realities.”  
The phrase “epistemic crisis” is used in journalism, policy analysis and academic work to describe a perceived breakdown in shared standards for determining what is true.  Commentators argue that citizens no longer agree on where knowledge comes from, which institutions to trust, or even on basic facts, leading to social conflict, policy paralysis and vulnerability to misinformation [4][6][7]. RAND’s 2018 study labelled the same constellation of problems “Truth Decay,” noting four simultaneous trends: disagreement about facts, blurring of opinion and fact, information overload, and declining trust in formerly authoritative institutions [4].  More recent polling shows record-low public confidence in government [3] and in scientists [5], reinforcing the idea that the crisis is ongoing.


=== What is causing it? ===
=== What is the epistemic crisis?   ===
Multiple mechanisms are invoked; none is universally accepted, but several themes recur across the literature.
* Decline in shared facts.  RAND researchers describe a “diminishing role of facts and analysis in American public life,” a condition they label Truth Decay [4].


'' Politicization of knowledge-producing bodies.  Experimental evidence shows that when an institution’s work is framed as partisan, trust falls even among people who share the institution’s stated ideology [1].   
* Erosion of institutional trust.  Confidence in government has fallen from roughly 75 % in 1960 to about 16 % in 2024 [3].  Trust in scientists, once exceptionally high, has also slipped steadily since 2019 [5].   
'' Replication and quality problems inside science.  A landmark multi-lab effort could replicate only ~40 % of high-profile psychology findings [2]; later reviews claim the share of false findings may be closer to 75 % [12].   
'' Media and information-system change.  Analysts point to 24-hour cable news, social media, and search‐driven advertising as amplifiers of sensational or identity-affirming content, while traditional newsrooms lose resources and public standing [13][14][15][16]. 
'' Declining elite performance (“elite failure”).  Commentators on both left and right argue that repeated expert and leadership errors—financial, military, epidemiological—have eroded the public’s prior of institutional competence [8][9][11].   
'' Cognitive and motivational factors.  Writers such as Arnold Kling emphasise “motivated reasoning” and the tendency to treat politics as identity, which makes factual disagreement more durable [6]. 
'' Supply-side misinformation.  While some researchers warn the problem is overstated [10], others note that low barriers to publishing enable coordinated campaigns to spread false narratives that then thrive in the permissive media ecosystem [7].


=== Examples of elite failure that contributed to the crisis ===
* Internal uncertainty within the knowledge-producing community.  A large collaborative effort found that only 36 % of high-profile psychology findings could be replicated [2], suggesting that even peer-reviewed claims may be unreliable.
Below are widely cited episodes in which decision-makers or expert bodies misinformed the public or performed poorly, becoming touchstones in the discourse on epistemic breakdown.


'' The Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction intelligence failure (2002-03).  Frequently cited by Dan Williams and Yascha Mounk as an early modern case of bipartisan elite error that damaged media and government credibility [7][13]. 
Commentators summarise the situation as an “epistemic crisis” [6][7][10], a phrase that has migrated from academic journals to mainstream commentary during the past decade.
'' The Global Financial Crisis (2008).  Analysts link regulatory and academic complacency to the crash, arguing that the failure of economists and regulators helped normalise scepticism toward experts [8]. 
'' The Replication Crisis in psychology and other sciences (2011-present).  Large-scale replication efforts revealed systemic methodological weaknesses, shaking confidence in peer review [2][12]. 
'' Pandemic messaging reversals (2020-22).  Nate Silver details how shifting public-health guidance on masks, school closures and vaccine side-effects undermined perceptions of technocratic competence [9]. 
'' Institutional media scandals.  Internal critiques at NPR [15], the New York Times [16] and the Washington Post [14] argue that politicised newsroom cultures led to coverage errors that further depressed trust in journalism.


=== Timeline of the public discourse ===
=== What is causing the crisis?  ===
'' 2003 Iraq WMD controversy sparks sustained questioning of intelligence and media narratives [7][13]. 
Multiple, overlapping forces are identified in the literature and commentary:
'' 2008–09 Financial crisis intensifies scrutiny of economic experts and regulatory agencies [8]. 
'' 2015 Science publishes the “Reproducibility Project: Psychology,” igniting mainstream attention to replication failures [2]. 
'' 2018 RAND coins “Truth Decay,” framing the phenomenon as a policy challenge [4]. 
'' 2020 COVID-19 brings scientific uncertainty to daily life; trust in health authorities oscillates (covered extensively by Silver, Harris and others [9][11]). 
'' 2023 Pew finds a ten-point drop in trust in scientists since 2020 [5]; Dan Williams and Arnold Kling publish essays explicitly calling the moment an “epistemic crisis” [6][7]. 
'' 2024 Pew reports trust in U.S. federal government near historic lows [3]; overlapping Substack debates (Yglesias, Silver, Singal) focus on elite failure and information gate-keeping [9][13].


=== Conflicting or divergent views ===
# Politicisation of expertise 
While most sources agree that trust is falling, they disagree on severity and remedy.  RAND frames the issue as policy-fixable through better civic education and media literacy [4], whereas Sam Harris emphasises moral leadership and institutional reform [11].  Lee Jussim argues that replication crises show problems are largely internal to academia [12], while Yascha Mounk stresses structural incentives in media organisations [13].  Matthew Yglesias contends that “elite misinformation” is more damaging than fringe conspiracy content [13], a view some fact-checking scholars dispute [10].
  A controlled study shows that when scientific findings are explicitly tied to partisan rhetoric, trust declines even among people ideologically aligned with the source [1].  Critics argue that professional bodies endorsing candidates or policy positions accelerate this slide [20].


=== Summary ===
# Information supply shocks 
The epistemic crisis refers to a multifaceted erosion of shared methods for establishing truth.  Data show declining trust in government, science and news.  Research attributes the problem to politicisation, scientific unreliability, changing information markets, and headline-grabbing elite failures such as the Iraq war, the financial crash, replication shortfalls and pandemic missteps.  Debate continues over root causes and fixes, but there is broad agreement that the legitimacy of knowledge institutions is under strain.
  Social media and 24-hour news produce an “information overload,” while algorithms reward novelty and outrage over accuracy [4][12].
 
# Elite failure and reputational self-damage 
  Repeated high-profile errors—whether in scholarship, media, or governance—create a negative feedback loop: each new mistake makes the next fact-check less credible [9][15].
 
# Replication and methodological crises inside academia 
  The observed 36 % replication rate in psychology [2] and subsequent estimates that “about 75 % of psychology claims are false” [13] undermine public faith in science more broadly.
 
# Perceived ideological homogeneity among gatekeepers 
  Analyses of newsroom and university cultures describe an increasingly uniform set of political priors, which can blind organisations to their own errors and alienate outsiders [12][18][19].
 
=== Examples of elite failures that fuelled the crisis  ===
* The replication crisis in psychology (2015-present).  High-profile findings, including social-priming effects, failed to reproduce, casting doubt on a generation of research [2][13]. 
 
* COVID-19 communication missteps.  Although not universally acknowledged as “failure,” commentators such as Yglesias argue that changing guidelines and premature certainty damaged trust in public-health authorities [15]. 
 
* Politicised science statements.  Professional societies publicly endorsing partisan positions (e.g., in U.S. presidential elections) were criticised for blurring lines between evidence and advocacy [20]. 
 
* Media groupthink and retractions.  Cases ranging from misreported campus incidents to early coverage of the “lab-leak” hypothesis illustrate what Mounk calls the tendency of major outlets to “move in unison” [12][18].  An NPR senior editor recounts internal pressures that, in his view, caused the network to lose the trust of half the country [19]. 
 
* Intelligence and policy failures (e.g., Iraq WMD).  While not detailed in the provided sources, RAND notes such events as emblematic episodes where institutional certainty later proved unfounded, reinforcing cynicism [4].
 
=== Timeline of the public discourse  ===
1958-1970s High post-war trust in government and traditional media [3]. 
 
1990s Early internet expands information sources; ideological media niches begin to form (background to Truth Decay [4]). 
 
2012-2015 “Replication crisis” label enters academic and popular press after failed replications in psychology; Science publishes large-scale reproducibility project [2]. 
 
2016 The term “post-truth” is Oxford’s Word of the Year; commentators like Arnold Kling frame events as an “epistemic crisis” [6]. 
 
2018 RAND publishes Truth Decay report [4]; discourse around elite failure intensifies after the 2016 election and social-media scandals. 
 
2020-2022 Pandemic amplifies scrutiny of scientific and media institutions; Pew registers first sustained decline in trust in scientists [5]. 
 
2023 Opinion pieces analyse “elite failures and populist backlash” [8] and lament “when the New York Times lost its way” [18]. 
 
2024 Pew shows record-low trust in government [3]; Nate Silver declares that “the expert class is failing” [9]; commentary on institutional credibility dominates Substack and mainstream outlets.
 
=== Summary of disagreements in the sources  ===
* Degree of crisis.  Some analysts see a systemic breakdown (Kling [6], Williams [7]), while others emphasise correctable policy and communication errors (Yglesias [15]). 
 
* Primary culprit.  Academic authors stress structural forces like information overload [4], whereas journalists focus on elite errors and ideological bias [12][18][19]. 
 
* Solutions.  Proposals range from depoliticising science [20] to building alternative trust networks outside legacy institutions [11][17]. 
 
Together, the evidence suggests that the epistemic crisis is real, multi-causal, and likely to persist until institutions rebuild both accuracy and perceived impartiality.


== Sources ==
== Sources ==
Retrieved from "https://www.thewikle.com/w/What_is_the_epistemic_crisis%3F"