|
|
| 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? ===
| | '''What is the “epistemic crisis”?''' |
|
| |
|
| The phrase “epistemic crisis” refers to a perceived breakdown in the shared processes by which societies determine what is true. Writers who use the term argue that citizens no longer agree on (1) which institutions are trustworthy, (2) what counts as evidence, or (3) who qualifies as an expert. The result is a chronic contest over basic facts rather than over values or policy preferences [4][6][7][10].
| | A growing body of empirical work and commentary argues that the United States, and to a lesser extent other liberal democracies, are experiencing an “epistemic crisis” – a breakdown in the social processes by which citizens identify reliable information, form shared factual baselines and hold institutions accountable for error. Symptoms include historically low levels of trust in government and media, declining confidence in scientists, partisan divergence over basic facts, and a surge in misinformation and conspiratorial narratives [3][4][5][14]. The crisis is not simply about “fake news” but about the erosion of the cultural and institutional mechanisms that once resolved disputes over truth [4][6][7][16]. |
|
| |
|
| Key diagnostic signals include:
| | '''What is causing it?''' |
|
| |
|
| '' Collapsing confidence in federal government [3] and in the news media [14][18].
| | Multiple, partly overlapping explanations appear in the sources. |
| '' Falling trust in scientists despite historically high approval a decade ago [5].
| |
| '' Empirical findings that many published scientific claims, especially in psychology, fail to replicate [2][13].
| |
| '' Experimental evidence that overt politicization of neutral bodies (e.g., public-health agencies) erodes confidence even among ideological allies [1].
| |
|
| |
|
| RAND’s 2018 study labels the same pattern “Truth Decay,” emphasising the blurred line between opinion and fact and the “declining trust in formerly respected sources of factual information” [4].
| | * Politicization of institutions. When scientific or professional bodies take overtly ideological positions, even co-partisans lose trust [1][20]. |
|
| |
|
| === What is causing it? ===
| | * Declining reliability of expert knowledge. Large-scale replication failures in psychology and biomedicine have undermined confidence in academic research [2][13]. |
|
| |
|
| Most authors cite an interaction of structural, technological, and institutional failures rather than a single villain.
| | * Information overload and the digital media environment. Social media, partisan news outlets and algorithmic feeds amplify emotive claims faster than fact-based reporting, making it difficult for the public to sort signal from noise [4][12][16]. |
|
| |
|
| # Politicization of expert bodies
| | * Elite information failures. High-profile mistakes by governments, public-health officials, intelligence agencies and media organizations have convinced many citizens that gatekeepers are no better informed than lay people [8][9][15]. |
| When agencies or professional associations take overt positions on contested political questions, public trust falls sharply [1][20].
| |
| # Incentive problems inside knowledge-producing fields
| |
| The replication crisis revealed that academic career incentives reward novel, attention-grabbing findings more than careful verification, leading to a high false-positive rate [2][13].
| |
|
| |
|
| # Media transformation
| | * Polarization and motivated reasoning. Partisans increasingly reject inconvenient facts, producing “two epistemic universes” that rarely overlap [1][4][6][7]. |
| The collapse of the advertising model and the rise of social platforms push news outlets toward speed, narrative cohesion, and audience segmentation, amplifying errors and groupthink [12][18][19].
| |
|
| |
|
| # Partisan filtering and motivated reasoning
| | There is disagreement on emphasis. Commentators such as Arnold Kling stress cognitive tribalism [6], while RAND researchers highlight structural media changes [4]. Substack writers argue that elite insularity is the root problem [9][15]; Pew maintains that partisan cues matter more than individual events [3][5]. |
| Long-running Pew series show that trust in government and in scientists is now heavily conditioned on party identity [3][5]. RAND notes that partisan-biased processing of information accelerates once common factual baselines erode [4].
| |
|
| |
|
| # Elite signalling and perceived hypocrisy
| | '''Examples of elite failures frequently cited as catalysts''' |
| Essays by Kling, Silver, Yglesias, and others argue that visible failures by highly credentialed decision-makers have created a “credibility deficit” that generalises from one domain (e.g., finance) to many others [6][8][9][15].
| |
|
| |
|
| Although most sources agree on the core mechanisms, they disagree on emphasis: Boston Review [16] stresses that “fake-news panic” is exaggerated, whereas Slow Boring [15] argues elite misinformation is still underrated; Sam Harris focuses on moral tribalism [11]; Arnold Kling sees institutions captured by “insiders” who ignore feedback [6].
| | * Scientific replication crisis – only ~40 % of landmark psychology findings reproduced in a coordinated effort [2], with later analyses suggesting the non-replication rate may be closer to 75 % [13]. |
|
| |
|
| === Examples of elite failure that fuelled the crisis ===
| | * Public-health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic – shifting guidance and political messaging cited as a textbook case of politicization eroding trust [1][9][15]. |
|
| |
|
| (The list reflects events repeatedly cited in the sources; not every essay mentions every item.)
| | * Media reporting lapses – The New York Times’ coverage controversies [18], NPR’s internal critique that it marginalized dissenting voices [19], and the rapid, erroneous speculation after the Potomac plane crash [17] are offered as evidence that journalistic norms have weakened. |
|
| |
|
| * Replication crisis in psychology and social science – high-profile findings failed to reproduce when tested by the Open Science Collaboration [2][13]. | | * Government competence and integrity – declining approval of federal institutions since the 1960s, with new lows reached after events such as the Iraq WMD intelligence failure and the 2008 financial crisis [3][8]. |
|
| |
|
| * COVID-19 communication reversals – shifting guidance on masking, school closures, and lab-leak plausibility are cited as emblematic of politicized expertise [1][6][15]. | | * Professional associations taking partisan stances – for example, scientific societies endorsing political candidates, which some researchers warn undermines their perceived neutrality [20]. |
|
| |
|
| * Financial-crisis risk modelling – “expert” assurances before 2008 collapsed rapidly, illustrating misaligned incentives in economic forecasting [8][9].
| | Collectively, these incidents reinforce public perceptions that experts are fallible, partisan, or both, feeding the larger epistemic crisis. |
| | |
| * Media misreports and narrative lock-ins – Jesse Singal’s plane-crash example shows journalists privileging rapid consensus over accuracy [17]; Economist and Free Press pieces on NYT and NPR describe internal cultures that discouraged dissenting facts [18][19].
| |
| | |
| * Intelligence claims on Iraqi WMDs (frequently invoked in commentary though not empirically analysed in these particular sources) serve as an early, vivid instance of bipartisan expert failure, reinforcing later scepticism [8][15].
| |
| | |
| === Public-discourse timeline ===
| |
| | |
| 2015 – “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science” finds only ~36 % of 100 landmark studies replicate, launching mainstream attention to the replication crisis [2].
| |
| | |
| 2016-2017 – Post-election debates over “fake news” and filter bubbles surface; RAND begins drafting Truth Decay framework, published in 2018 [4].
| |
| | |
| 2018 – Truth Decay report formalises concern about declining trust and factual fragmentation [4].
| |
| | |
| 2020-2021 – Pandemic intensifies scrutiny of public-health messaging; Substack boom provides alternative venues for media criticism (Kling [6], Conspicuous Cognition [7][8], Sam Kahn [10]).
| |
| | |
| 2023 – Pew documents a ten-point drop (since 2020) in Americans who say scientists “care about the public” [5].
| |
| | |
| 2024 – Research Square experiment shows politicized cues can erode trust even among ideological allies, suggesting worsening polarisation of epistemic authority [1]. Additional op-eds in Washington Post [14] and essays by Nate Silver [9] and others frame the crisis as a central election-year issue.
| |
| | |
| === Summary ===
| |
| | |
| Across surveys, experiments, and commentary, the “epistemic crisis” is diagnosed as a loss of shared mechanisms for determining truth. Causes include politicization, perverse incentives within science and media, technological change, and conspicuous elite failures. While authors disagree on which factor weighs most, they converge on the conclusion that rebuilding credible institutions—and the incentives that govern them—is essential if public discourse is to regain a stable factual foundation.
| |
|
| |
|
| == Sources == | | == Sources == |