[I am going to do a bit of reverse engineering here. I watched the documentary Skin Deep: The Battle over Morgellons and was captivated at how well it captured an essential element of the Epistemological Crisis. Groups of people who are deeply invested in their positions who then communicate only within and amongst themselves and communication between groups results in ‘thought terminating’ language and motivations]
I would propose to use Morgellons as an analogical model for the Epistemological Crisis. Invested parties in the topic of Morgellons are discreet enough to offer a manageable examination. Additionally, as I have no personal connection to Morgellons, I have extremely limited exposure to conflict of interest considerations. The two primary ‘camps’ are those who demonstrate they are suffering from Morgellons, and on the other side, institutions (CDC / Medial Establishment) who contend that Morgellons does not exist.
There is an interesting alignment / sequence in this proposal in that the core question is one rooted in philosophy, but both the proposed research and consequent rationalization are both rooted in Social Science.
Research Questions
Can I use Morgellons (or equivalent) as an effective analogical model for offering a deeper understanding of the Epistemological Crisis?
What makes Morgellons a valid / useful analogical model?
What are the elements which concretize the positions of disparate groups (whose contradictory positions act to subvert the other)?
Are thought terminating language / motivations / actions a reflex or intentional response?
Can the essential elements of the conflict between the invested parties of Morgellons be identified as discrete elements?
Can these essential elements be generalized to understand other analogical models and lead to a broader understanding of the Epistemological Crisis?
Can the conflict be disarmed? If so, can the tactics / solutions be generalized or would they be too discrete / specific?
Audience
I am reminded of a quote from Author/Podcaster Amber A’Lee Frost (paraphrased): The one universal lesson higher education students are effectively taught is to unlearn how to speak to regular people.
The elements of this project are deeply rooted in academe, so I would think that the ‘natural’ audience would be academe. The problem I have is that much of my perspective on this indicts academe as, if not the singular, a major contributor to the existence and exacerbating factor of the Epistemological Crisis. In this way, suggesting the audience for this project to be academe would be (in my mind) equivalent to Marx & Engels writing The Communist Manifesto for the bourgeoisie. Ideally, then, I would like my audience to be the proletariat (though I fully acknowledge the tremendous challenge of such – but utopian idealism shouldn’t be – in and of itself – an academic infraction!)
So What?
I stand by my assertion that the Epistemological Crisis is real and suggests serious consequences not just for the immediate, but for the long term health of human society – be it the limitation of the construct of The United States (which I am not particularly invested in maintaining for any other reason than to mitigate against accelerationist collapse), or the broader implications of Global Climate Change on global health. Discretely, I think empirical evidence can demonstrate that inaction (and the actions which obviated productive action) on COVID has had catastrophic consequences, and that GCC can demonstrate similar with far greater consequences. Assuming humans to be functioning rational (AND social) beings, what is the source of such catastrophic behavior?
I think that an analogical model which (hopefully) can explicate the Epistemological Crisis in an accessible way – a sort of philosophical amuse bouche – can serve to define the subject as legitimate and worthy.
… Kenny
Revising and Specifying
I am still striving to tighten the focus. Even within the framework of the analogical model of Morgellons, this is still too broad.
On some reflection of Dr. Hocutt’s presentation, I think a tighter focus would be on the use of language. I hope that his expertise in rhetoric may help lend / guide a path – particularly in reflection of a reference to Linguistic Relativity I made in my Chapter 2 summary and the role which language plays in discrete cultures. The use of the term ‘culture’ here for referencing epistemologically isolated (relatively) groups (specifically for this project – who are oppositional aligned to an other epistemologically isolated group).
I hope that tightening the focus further to language / rhetoric will make this manageable (and useful / productive exercise for me).
… Kenny
The general framework I am looking at this is through an exploratory and historical perspective. Additionally, I would, ideally, like to apply a multi- and inter-disciplinary approach.
I think that a focus on ‘language’ and ‘rhetoric’ still holds – particularly as a way to keep the focus tight enough. But drilling down to a specific focus seems antithetical to this as an exploratory research (framework) – which I actually hope to use throughout my MLA studies.
I also think analogical models (through historical analysis) will help.
And, I still want to be able to meaningfully describe the E-crisis.
Can I use an historical analysis of analogical models to meaningfully describe the current E-crisis?
I get that this is ‘broad’ – and perhaps a focus on language/rhetoric is a viable path to tighten this, but I don’t know how to effectively tighten exploratory research beyond this? (I guess this is a question!)
… Kenny
Lots going on here, as has always been the case. To my mind, the ability to define and demonstrate the damaging effects of epistemological crisis is a lifetime pursuit, not something to be addressed in even a single semester or a single course of study like a degree program. At its heart, you are critiquing ways of thinking, and ways of thinking are the foundation of social, cultural, political, economic, and religious life and activity. From the perspective of research methods, I believe you must challenge yourself to tighten your focus on a specific example of the crisis in action. Your use of Morgellons disease would be one approach. The key to using a single example (which is a kind of case study) is to develop potentially generalizable approaches (methods, methodology, structures, frameworks) in a single example, then using them (in a different study) to test that approach on a new case. Your proposal would be to research the rhetoric surrounding Morgellons disease, to examine the way that knowledge is being produced on multiple sides of the issue, and to identify specific ways that the epistemological processes of knowledge creation reflects the characteristics of the epistemological crisis as you understand it.
I don’t believe you can prove the existence of the epistemological crisis in a single study. Instead, you can develop an approach by closely examining a particular issue and asking specific questions of the way opinions are formed and solidified into knowledge around that issue as a microcosm of the global issue you are investigating.
So the goal for your research questions would be to ask about Morgellons disease questions like “How are opinions and knowledge formed about Morgellons disease?” You’re not researching the validity of any specific set of claims, but the way that claims are supported in an effort to reveal the filter bubble (see Eli Pariser) that solidifies around opinions as a result of being faced only with evidence that supports one’s foregone conclusion.
Be careful to avoid falling into that very trap yourself. By assuming the epistemological crisis, your tendency will be to selectively support its existence with your examples. Seek to follow the path of opinion development and knowledge making dispassionately toward developing a framework that can be applied to multiple kinds of epistemological knowledge-making processes.
I believe your methodology will likely be a combination of rhetorical and historical, specifically tracing the history of rhetorical argumentation for and against Morgellons. But I’m getting ahead of myself there.
“You’re not researching the validity of any specific set of claims, but the way that claims are supported in an effort to reveal the filter bubble (see Eli Pariser) that solidifies around opinions as a result of being faced only with evidence that supports one’s foregone conclusion.”
This is already reasonably well studied – for example, specifically the effects of social media in forming epistemic bubbles. Even apart from the effects of the hidden algorithms which are such a source of controversy recently – there is a psychological tendency for people to effectively ‘dig in’ when core beliefs are challenged. I think there is a correlative here in terms of the protectiveness of psychological defense mechanisms, but I am not too sure it is anything more than peripheral. It is interesting and perhaps supportive – but not crucial since my focus is less on individual(s) and more on the ‘bubbles’ or cultures themselves.
Also – it isn’t the discreet “evidence” or “claims” selection itself – but more about the process which leads to the ‘editing’ of the evidence and claims.
As for a check and compare type of strategy outlined in your first paragraph – It is my conclusion that instead of extending this across two potential studies – that extracting comparative information from two distinct scenarios would accomplish this (My revised choice on this aligns with wanting to maintain MY passion for the project – so I have chosen Global Climate Change and the response to the COVID pandemic).