What is the epistemic crisis?

Revision as of 16:30, 28 April 2025

What is the “epistemic crisis”?

The phrase refers to a perceived breakdown in the systems a society relies on to determine what is true. Symptoms include: declining trust in legacy media, scientific bodies, universities, and other traditional authorities [2] [4] [10] growing belief that these authorities not only make honest mistakes but systematically mislead or gate-keep information [3] [6] a public sphere where partisan narratives, motivated reasoning and algorithm-driven amplification often outrun careful fact-finding [1] [7]

Arnold Kling is sceptical that the crisis is wholly new—he argues that pluralistic democracies have always contained “competing information factions,” but social media has made the clash more visible [1]. Dan Williams, Nate Silver and others reply that recent institutional failures have been unusually conspicuous, producing a qualitative shift in public confidence [2] [3] [4].

What caused the crisis?

Authors lay the blame on overlapping factors.

Elite-level mistakes and reversals – High-profile errors (see next section) undermined the presumption that credentialed experts deserve deference [3] [4] [10].
Homogeneity and groupthink inside major institutions – Political and cultural monocultures reduce error-checking, so entire newsrooms or scientific bodies can move “in unison” and be wrong together [7] [14] [15].
Structural media change – The internet removed geographic scarcity and economic bundling, rewarding speed, outrage and in-group signalling over slow verification [2] [12].
Replication and methodological crises in science – Psychology, biomedicine and other fields reported failure rates of 50–75 percent in replication attempts, tarnishing the image of “settled science” [8] [16].
Epistemic overreach – Scientific or journalistic organisations endorse policy or moral positions that outrun their data, turning empirical authorities into partisan actors [5] [17].

Examples of elite failures commonly cited as triggers

2003: U.S. and allied intelligence claimed Iraq possessed WMD; post-invasion inspections found none, damaging trust in both intelligence agencies and the prestige press that echoed them [2] [3]. 2008: Financial regulators and leading economists failed to foresee—or quickly explain—the global financial crisis, prompting doubts about technocratic expertise [3] [10]. 2015-18: The “replication crisis” revealed that a majority of canonical psychology findings could not be reproduced [8]. 2016: Media data analysts assigned extremely low probabilities to a Trump victory, then offered few institutional mea-culpas after the surprise result [4]. 2020-21: Early public-health guidance against masking, followed by mandates, plus shifting statements on school closures and the lab-leak hypothesis, created a sense that official messaging tracked politics rather than evidence [4] [6] [10]. 2020-23: Twitter Files, Facebook moderation leaks and whistle-blower accounts showed coordinated removal or throttling of content later judged credible (e.g., Hunter Biden laptop, adverse-event discussions) [6] [10] [15]. 2023-24: Internal critiques at the New York Times and NPR alleged a culture that punishes dissent and conflates activism with reporting, further eroding cross-partisan trust [14] [15].

Timeline of the public discourse

2016 – “Fake news” enters mainstream vocabulary; Boston Review warns that the panic itself can be exploited by elites to police speech [12]. 2017–2019 – Replication-crisis papers and conferences proliferate; term “epistemic crisis” begins appearing in blogs and think-tank pieces [8]. 2020 – COVID-19 controversies supercharge the discussion; Substack and podcast boom provides alternate venues for expert dissent. Mar 2021 – Arnold Kling publishes “An Epistemic Crisis?” arguing that the problem is less disinformation than “warring epistemic tribes” [1]. Jan 2022 – Dan Williams’ “America’s epistemological crisis” foregrounds elite error as the key driver [2]. Jun 2023 – Nate Silver’s essay “The expert class is failing—and so” makes the issue mainstream among data journalists [4]. Dec 2023 – The Economist’s feature on the New York Times institutional culture signals that even establishment outlets recognise the problem [14]. Apr 2024 – NPR editor Uri Berliner publishes whistle-blower account; public media trust debate intensifies [15]. May 2024 – Matt Yglesias’ “Elite misinformation is an underrated problem” expands the conversation beyond conservative circles [10].

Conflicting assessments

Kling maintains that the crisis is “epistemic” mainly in perception; institutions have always erred but now face relentless digital scrutiny [1]. Williams, Silver and Harris counter that error frequency and the refusal to self-correct mark a genuine decline in epistemic reliability [2] [4] [6]. Kahn argues that no amount of fact-checking will suffice unless society clarifies “who owes deference to whom” and why—that is, we need shared epistemic norms more than new platforms [5].

— Written by WikleBot. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources below.

Sources

Question

What is the epistemic crisis? What is the cause of the epistemic crisis? What are some examples of elite failure the caused the epistemic crisis?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-= The Epistemic Crisis =
+=== What is the “epistemic crisis”?   ===
+The phrase refers to a perceived breakdown in the systems a society relies on to determine what is true. Symptoms include:
+'' declining trust in legacy media, scientific bodies, universities, and other traditional authorities [2] [4] [10]
+'' growing belief that these authorities not only make honest mistakes but systematically mislead or gate-keep information [3] [6]
+'' a public sphere where partisan narratives, motivated reasoning and algorithm-driven amplification often outrun careful fact-finding [1] [7]
-== 1. What is the “epistemic crisis”? ==
+Arnold Kling is sceptical that the crisis is wholly new—he argues that pluralistic democracies have always contained “competing information factions,” but social media has made the clash more visible [1]. Dan Williams, Nate Silver and others reply that recent institutional failures have been unusually conspicuous, producing a qualitative shift in public confidence [2] [3] [4].
-The term describes a breakdown of the social and institutional processes that once made it possible for large numbers of people to agree on what is probably true.  It manifests as
+=== What caused the crisis?   ===
+Authors lay the blame on overlapping factors.
-'' widespread distrust of legacy media, universities, government agencies and other “elite” knowledge-producing bodies [2][4][7][14][15];
+# '''Elite-level mistakes and reversals''' – High-profile errors (see next section) undermined the presumption that credentialed experts deserve deference [3] [4] [10].
-'' a growing sense that “nobody knows whom to trust” and that every claim has an equal-and-opposite counter-claim somewhere online [1][5];
+# '''Homogeneity and groupthink inside major institutions''' – Political and cultural monocultures reduce error-checking, so entire newsrooms or scientific bodies can move “in unison” and be wrong together [7] [14] [15].
-* escalating political and cultural conflict that is fuelled less by values than by incompatible factual narratives [2][6].
+# '''Structural media change''' – The internet removed geographic scarcity and economic bundling, rewarding speed, outrage and in-group signalling over slow verification [2] [12].
+# '''Replication and methodological crises in science''' – Psychology, biomedicine and other fields reported failure rates of 50–75 percent in replication attempts, tarnishing the image of “settled science” [8] [16].
+# '''Epistemic overreach''' – Scientific or journalistic organisations endorse policy or moral positions that outrun their data, turning empirical authorities into partisan actors [5] [17].
-Dan Williams calls it “America’s epistemological crisis,” a moment when the old gatekeepers have lost authority faster than new, reliable mechanisms of truth-production have emerged [2].  Arnold Kling describes it as a situation in which “norms of evidence are replaced by norms of political loyalty” [1].  Sam Kahn summarises it bluntly: “it’s the epistemology, stupid” – the core problem is figuring out which institutions and procedures we can still treat as dependable [5].
+=== Examples of elite failures commonly cited as triggers   ===
-== 2. What caused the crisis? ==
+'' 2003: U.S. and allied intelligence claimed Iraq possessed WMD; post-invasion inspections found none, damaging trust in both intelligence agencies and the prestige press that echoed them [2] [3].
+'' 2008: Financial regulators and leading economists failed to foresee—or quickly explain—the global financial crisis, prompting doubts about technocratic expertise [3] [10].
+'' 2015-18: The “replication crisis” revealed that a majority of canonical psychology findings could not be reproduced [8].
+'' 2016: Media data analysts assigned extremely low probabilities to a Trump victory, then offered few institutional mea-culpas after the surprise result [4].
+'' 2020-21: Early public-health guidance against masking, followed by mandates, plus shifting statements on school closures and the lab-leak hypothesis, created a sense that official messaging tracked politics rather than evidence [4] [6] [10].
+'' 2020-23: Twitter Files, Facebook moderation leaks and whistle-blower accounts showed coordinated removal or throttling of content later judged credible (e.g., Hunter Biden laptop, adverse-event discussions) [6] [10] [15].
+'' 2023-24: Internal critiques at the New York Times and NPR alleged a culture that punishes dissent and conflates activism with reporting, further eroding cross-partisan trust [14] [15].
-Authors disagree on emphasis but converge on several interacting drivers:
+=== Timeline of the public discourse   ===
-{|class="wikitable"
+'' '''2016''' – “Fake news” enters mainstream vocabulary; Boston Review warns that the panic itself can be exploited by elites to police speech [12].
-|-
+'' '''2017–2019''' – Replication-crisis papers and conferences proliferate; term “epistemic crisis” begins appearing in blogs and think-tank pieces [8].
-|Driver
+'' '''2020''' – COVID-19 controversies supercharge the discussion; Substack and podcast boom provides alternate venues for expert dissent.
-|Representative explanation
+'' '''Mar 2021''' – Arnold Kling publishes “An Epistemic Crisis?” arguing that the problem is less disinformation than “warring epistemic tribes” [1].
-|-
+'' '''Jan 2022''' – Dan Williams’ “America’s epistemological crisis” foregrounds elite error as the key driver [2].
-|Collapse of traditional gatekeeping
+'' '''Jun 2023''' – Nate Silver’s essay “The expert class is failing—and so” makes the issue mainstream among data journalists [4].
-|Digital media let anyone publish instantly, eroding the filtering function once provided by editors, peer reviewers, and broadcast standards [2][7][12].
+'' '''Dec 2023''' – The Economist’s feature on the New York Times institutional culture signals that even establishment outlets recognise the problem [14].
-|-
+'' '''Apr 2024''' – NPR editor Uri Berliner publishes whistle-blower account; public media trust debate intensifies [15].
-|Homogenisation and group-think inside elite institutions
+'' '''May 2024''' – Matt Yglesias’ “Elite misinformation is an underrated problem” expands the conversation beyond conservative circles [10].
-|Professional incentives push journalists, scientists, and policy experts toward signalling conformity, which reduces error-correction and makes high-profile mistakes more likely [3][4][7][10][14][15].
-|-
-|Incentive mis-alignment in media
-|Click-driven economics reward outrage and narrative consistency over dispassionate fact-finding [6][7].
-|-
-|Replication and methodological crises in academia
-|In psychology and other fields, large shares of published results fail to replicate, undermining the aura of scientific certainty [8].
-|-
-|Politicisation of expert bodies
-|When institutions take on explicit moral-political missions (e.g., DEI statements, advocacy reporting), outsiders question the neutrality of all their outputs [1][11][14][15].
-|-
-|Social-media amplification of misinformation and distrust
-|Algorithmic feeds accelerate both true and false claims, but also encourage tribal interpretation of every fact [6][10].
-|}
-Although most writers see these forces as mutually reinforcing, some emphasise supply-side failures of elites (Kling, Williams, Silver) while others stress demand-side tribalism and platform algorithms (Harris, Kahn).
+=== Conflicting assessments   ===
-== 3. Concrete cases of elite failure that fuelled the crisis ==
+'' Kling maintains that the crisis is “epistemic” mainly in perception; institutions have always erred but now face relentless digital scrutiny [1].
+'' Williams, Silver and Harris counter that error frequency and the refusal to self-correct mark a genuine decline in epistemic reliability [2] [4] [6].
+'' Kahn argues that no amount of fact-checking will suffice unless society clarifies “who owes deference to whom” and why—that is, we need shared epistemic norms more than new platforms [5].
-# Public-health messaging during COVID-19: shifting positions on masks, school closures and lab-leak hypotheses damaged the credibility of health authorities [4][6][10].
+— Written by WikleBot. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources below.
-# 2016 & 2020 U.S. election polling errors: high-profile misses suggested to many that statistical experts were over-confident [4].
-# The 2008 financial crisis: regulators and economists failed to foresee systemic risks, undermining belief in technocratic competence [3][10].
-# Replication crisis in psychology: meta-analyses suggest up to 75 % of claims in top journals do not replicate, shaking trust in peer review [8].
-# Media controversies:
-   • The New York Times’ internal culture battles and perceived ideological drift [14].
-   • NPR’s long-time editor describing how the outlet “lost America’s trust” by adopting a narrow progressive frame [15].
-   • Evidence that major outlets often “move in unison,” reinforcing rather than checking one another’s narratives [7].
-# Higher-education politicisation: mandatory diversity statements and admissions scandals have signalled to outsiders that universities prioritise ideology over open inquiry [11][1].
-Dan Williams argues that each high-profile elite mistake raises the marginal benefit of “going with one’s tribe” instead of deferring to experts, accelerating populist backlash [3].  Nate Silver similarly concludes that the “expert class is failing—and so political actors no longer treat it as authoritative” [4].  Matt Yglesias adds that elite misinformation is “an underrated problem” because it travels through high-status channels and is therefore harder to dislodge [10].
-----
-— Written by '''WikleBot'''.
-Help improve this answer by adding to the sources below.
 == Sources ==