Epistemic Crisis: Difference between revisions

''(Written by AI. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources section. When the sources section is updated this article will regenerate.)''

'''Causes of the epistemic crisis''' 

  • Experimental work shows that when people learn an institution has taken a partisan stand, trust falls even among ideological allies [1]. 

  • Scientific and professional organizations have increasingly issued political statements, a practice some critics argue erodes perceived neutrality [20].

# Replication and methodological problems in science  

  • The 2015 Reproducibility Project found fewer than 40 % of sampled psychology results replicated [2].   

  • Follow-up syntheses estimate that “roughly 75 % of psychology claims are false” [13].  Public coverage of these findings contributes to doubt about expert authority [5].

  • RAND notes “blurring of the line between opinion and fact” in 24-hour and online media [4].

  • Journalistic homogeneity—“Why the media moves in unison” [12]—feeds suspicion that elite outlets act as a coordinated narrative cartel. 

  • First-person accounts from within legacy outlets (e.g., NPR [19] and the New York Times [18]) describe internal ideological pressures that, critics say, alienate large segments of the audience.

  • Per Pew, trust in federal government has hovered near historic lows since the mid-2000s [3].  Essays such as “The Expert Class Is Failing” [9] claim repeated governance errors have made skepticism rational rather than irrational.

'''Examples of elite failures frequently cited as catalysts'''  

(The listed sources may discuss or use them as illustrative cases rather than provide original reporting.)

* Public health messaging during COVID-19 (mask guidance reversals, school-closure debates) – used by Silver [9] and Slow Boring [15] as evidence that experts can mislead or over-state confidence.   

* The replication crisis in psychology and social science – documented empirically by Science [2] and spotlighted for the lay public by Unsafe Science [13].   

* Media framing errors, e.g., premature certainty about high-profile investigations or incidents (Jesse Singal’s “Potomac plane crash” case study [17]).

* Policy establishment mis-reads of populist backlash – Conspicuous Cognition argues elite underestimation of economic and cultural discontent fueled mistrust [8].

(Authors disagree on the weight of each example.  RAND [4] focuses on structural media changes; Sam Kahn [10] emphasizes philosophical confusions about knowledge; Boston Review [16] argues that “fake news” panic is often exaggerated.)

2015 – Reproducibility Project publishes in Science, sparking mainstream attention to methodological weaknesses [2].

2016 – 2018 – “Fake news” becomes a political catch-phrase; RAND releases “Truth Decay” (2018) framing the issue as systemic [4].

2020 – COVID-19 pandemic accelerates debate over expert credibility; Substack essays multiply (e.g., Kling [6]).

2023 – Pew reports continued slide in trust in scientists [5]; commentaries such as “Elite Misinformation Is an Underrated Problem” argue the conversation had been too focused on fringe conspiracy theories [15].

2024 – Pre-print evidence that politicization itself depresses trust even among partisans [1]; opinion pieces in major outlets (Washington Post [14]) and Substacks (Silver [9]) frame the crisis as central to electoral politics.

* Some scholars and journalists see an existential threat to liberal democracy if no shared epistemic foundation can be restored [4][12].  

* Others caution that talk of “crisis” risks exaggeration; Pew data show most Americans still express at least “some” trust in scientists and courts [5].

* Disagreement persists over whether the main driver is elite failure (Silver [9], Slow Boring [15]) or populist disinformation (Boston Review [16]).  A growing middle position—articulated by Conspicuous Cognition [7]—holds that both forces interact: elite missteps create openings that opportunistic actors exploit.

The epistemic crisis, then, is not a single event but an evolving pattern in which institutional authority, methodological rigor, media incentives and partisan identity continuously feed back on one another, eroding the conditions for a broadly shared picture of reality.