Epistemic Crisis: Difference between revisions

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.''

'''What is the ~~“epistemic crisis”~~?'''

'''What is the epistemic crisis?'''

~~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].

An “epistemic crisis” is a breakdown in the social systems that allow people to agree on what is probably true. Commentators argue that large segments of the public no longer share a common set of trusted institutions, methods or experts that can reliably adjudicate facts, which in turn weakens collective decision-making and democratic legitimacy [4][6][7]. Surveys show that confidence in government, the news media and science has declined to historic lows [3][5][14]. Empirically, the crisis is visible in the replication failures of psychology and other sciences [2][13] and in rising perceptions that politics, not evidence, drives institutional statements [1].

'''What is ~~causing it~~?'''

'''What is the cause of the epistemic crisis?'''

~~Multiple, partly overlapping explanations appear in the sources~~.

Most writers see several interacting causes rather than a single trigger.

* Politicization of ~~institutions~~. ~~When scientific or professional bodies take overtly ideological positions~~, even co-~~partisans lose trust~~ [1][20].

* Politicization of expertise. Experiments find that when an institution takes a partisan stance, trust falls even among people who share its politics [1].

* Declining reproducibility and transparency in research. The 2015 “Reproducibility Project” replicated only 36 % of 100 prominent psychology findings [2]; commentators translate this into a generalized suspicion that “75 % of psychology claims are false” [13].

* “Truth Decay.” RAND describes a long-term shift in which objective facts have less influence on opinion, fueled by information overload, social media and polarization [4].

* Media homogeneity and economic pressures. Essays argue that prestige outlets increasingly move “in unison,” narrowing the range of permissible viewpoints and amplifying mistakes [12][18][19].

* Elite performance failures. Policy blunders, financial crises and pandemic missteps reduce the perceived competence of experts and thus the willingness to defer to them [8][9][15].

* Feedback loop of distrust. Falling trust leads people to seek alternative information sources, which are often lower quality, reinforcing the cycle of doubt [16].

* Declining reliability of ~~expert knowledge. Large-scale replication failures in psychology and biomedicine have undermined confidence in academic research [2][13].~~

'''What are some examples of elite failure that caused the epistemic crisis?'''

* 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]~~.

Commentators point to high-profile episodes where institutional actors were later judged to have misinformed or under-performed. The list below focuses on cases repeatedly cited across the sources.

* ~~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].

* Replication crisis in psychology and biomedical research [2][13] – journals and professional societies published results that could not be reproduced, shaking faith in peer review.

* Financial crisis of 2008 – although not detailed in the listed pieces, several authors cite it as an origin of populist backlash against economic and governmental elites [8][9].

* COVID-19 policy communication – Substack essays accuse health agencies and media of oscillating messages on masks, school closures and vaccine side-effects, eroding credibility [6][9][15].

* Politicized scientific endorsements – controversies such as professional societies endorsing specific political candidates are taken as evidence that science is being leveraged for partisan goals [20].

* Media miscues – examples include the “Potomac plane crash” rumor mill [17], perceived ideological conformity at The New York Times [18] and NPR’s loss of cross-partisan trust [19].

* Intelligence and national-security assessments – while not covered in depth by the academic sources, opinion writers frame pre-war weapons claims and surveillance revelations as emblematic elite errors [7][11].

* Polarization and ~~motivated reasoning. Partisans increasingly reject inconvenient facts, producing “two epistemic universes” that rarely overlap [1][4][6][7].~~

'''Conflicting views and ongoing discourse'''

~~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].~~

Not everyone accepts the “crisis” framing. Pew finds that majorities still express at least “a fair amount” of trust in scientists, even as the trend declines [5]. Boston Review warns that panic about “fake news” can itself be exaggerated and weaponized to suppress dissent [16]. Arnold Kling doubts that an epistemic collapse has truly occurred, suggesting instead that the internet merely exposes longstanding disagreements [6]. Conversely, RAND, Nate Silver and others argue the problem is real and worsening [4][9]. The debate thus centers on whether current trust levels are dangerously low or simply adjusting to a new information ecosystem.

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

* 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].

* 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~~].

* 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.~~

* 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].

* Professional associations taking partisan stances – for example, scientific societies endorsing political candidates, which some researchers warn undermines their perceived neutrality [20].

~~Collectively, these incidents reinforce public perceptions that experts~~ are ~~fallible, partisan,~~ or ~~both, feeding the larger epistemic crisis~~.

== Sources ==

@@ 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.''
-'''What is the “epistemic crisis”?'''
+'''What is the epistemic crisis?'''
-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].
+An “epistemic crisis” is a breakdown in the social systems that allow people to agree on what is probably true. Commentators argue that large segments of the public no longer share a common set of trusted institutions, methods or experts that can reliably adjudicate facts, which in turn weakens collective decision-making and democratic legitimacy [4][6][7]. Surveys show that confidence in government, the news media and science has declined to historic lows [3][5][14]. Empirically, the crisis is visible in the replication failures of psychology and other sciences [2][13] and in rising perceptions that politics, not evidence, drives institutional statements [1].
-'''What is causing it?'''
+'''What is the cause of the epistemic crisis?'''
-Multiple, partly overlapping explanations appear in the sources.
+Most writers see several interacting causes rather than a single trigger.
-* Politicization of institutions. When scientific or professional bodies take overtly ideological positions, even co-partisans lose trust [1][20].
+* Politicization of expertise. Experiments find that when an institution takes a partisan stance, trust falls even among people who share its politics [1].
+* Declining reproducibility and transparency in research. The 2015 “Reproducibility Project” replicated only 36 % of 100 prominent psychology findings [2]; commentators translate this into a generalized suspicion that “75 % of psychology claims are false” [13].
+* “Truth Decay.” RAND describes a long-term shift in which objective facts have less influence on opinion, fueled by information overload, social media and polarization [4].
+* Media homogeneity and economic pressures. Essays argue that prestige outlets increasingly move “in unison,” narrowing the range of permissible viewpoints and amplifying mistakes [12][18][19].
+* Elite performance failures. Policy blunders, financial crises and pandemic missteps reduce the perceived competence of experts and thus the willingness to defer to them [8][9][15].
+* Feedback loop of distrust. Falling trust leads people to seek alternative information sources, which are often lower quality, reinforcing the cycle of doubt [16].
-* Declining reliability of expert knowledge. Large-scale replication failures in psychology and biomedicine have undermined confidence in academic research [2][13].
+'''What are some examples of elite failure that caused the epistemic crisis?'''
-* 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].
+Commentators point to high-profile episodes where institutional actors were later judged to have misinformed or under-performed. The list below focuses on cases repeatedly cited across the sources.
-* 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].
+* Replication crisis in psychology and biomedical research [2][13] – journals and professional societies published results that could not be reproduced, shaking faith in peer review.
+* Financial crisis of 2008 – although not detailed in the listed pieces, several authors cite it as an origin of populist backlash against economic and governmental elites [8][9].
+* COVID-19 policy communication – Substack essays accuse health agencies and media of oscillating messages on masks, school closures and vaccine side-effects, eroding credibility [6][9][15].
+* Politicized scientific endorsements – controversies such as professional societies endorsing specific political candidates are taken as evidence that science is being leveraged for partisan goals [20].
+* Media miscues – examples include the “Potomac plane crash” rumor mill [17], perceived ideological conformity at The New York Times [18] and NPR’s loss of cross-partisan trust [19].
+* Intelligence and national-security assessments – while not covered in depth by the academic sources, opinion writers frame pre-war weapons claims and surveillance revelations as emblematic elite errors [7][11].
-* Polarization and motivated reasoning. Partisans increasingly reject inconvenient facts, producing “two epistemic universes” that rarely overlap [1][4][6][7].
+'''Conflicting views and ongoing discourse'''
-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].
+Not everyone accepts the “crisis” framing. Pew finds that majorities still express at least “a fair amount” of trust in scientists, even as the trend declines [5]. Boston Review warns that panic about “fake news” can itself be exaggerated and weaponized to suppress dissent [16]. Arnold Kling doubts that an epistemic collapse has truly occurred, suggesting instead that the internet merely exposes longstanding disagreements [6]. Conversely, RAND, Nate Silver and others argue the problem is real and worsening [4][9]. The debate thus centers on whether current trust levels are dangerously low or simply adjusting to a new information ecosystem.
-'''Examples of elite failures frequently cited as catalysts'''
-* 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].
-* 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].
-* 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.
-* 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].
-* Professional associations taking partisan stances – for example, scientific societies endorsing political candidates, which some researchers warn undermines their perceived neutrality [20].
-Collectively, these incidents reinforce public perceptions that experts are fallible, partisan, or both, feeding the larger epistemic crisis.
 == Sources ==