The Epistemological Crisis (E-Crisis) is seen as the non-functioning of society. A recent demonstration of this can be seen in the pandemic (COVID is a Hoax vs COVID is real and dangerous). Rather than a series of discrete instances, it is my contention the E-Crisis has become the dominant feature of society (specifically in the United States), and perhaps more controversial, is that the E-Crisis is the inevitable and intrinsic character of epistemology itself.
Is the E-Crisis real or just a figment of my own (and other researchers’) imagination?
Rather than assuming the E-Crisis exists, it is important to establish what it even is, what the characteristics of it are, and if it is something other than just a theoretical construct which I (and others) are pouring our collective anxieties into.
I have no idea what my “Unit of Analysis” is. Ostensibly, it is the “people of the United States”. The United States – because that is where I am currently living and where I perceive the E-Crisis the most viscerally. People – because the characteristics of the E-Crisis are, in the end, discretely exhibited by individuals. While I think there is social momentum which is intimately involved in the E-Crisis, it would perhaps be less noticeable (and impactful?) if it wasn’t for the expressions by and through individuals.
Rationale
My perception is that I live in a fundamentally broken society (The United States of America) as perfectly demonstrated these past months by 600,000+ people dying from COVID in what is arguably the richest country the world has ever known. While I believe other countries / societies are similarly broken, I live here in the United States, and so I feel that impact more. (I could make the assertion the US has a stronger global impact than potentially other countries do, and so the focus on the US becomes one of global importance, but as a resident of the US, my interest is honestly more ego-centric).
While I think an argument could be made that the United States is simply exhibiting classical signs of a failing empire, I sense there is more to it. The impact of the existential threat of Global Climate Change (GCC) heightens the global costs and urgency of not just a failing empire, but a failed ideology.
We are all Nero while Rome is burning (Yes, I know it isn’t ‘true’, but I think the metaphor is useful).
As I have alluded to, I believe there is empirical evidence (GCC and response/outcome of the COVID pandemic) that demonstrates some kind of crisis, but it is difficult to imagine addressing that crisis without understanding what it is.
“You cannot solve a problem until you acknowledge that you have one and take responsibility for solving it.” Zig Ziglar.
So, I hope to ‘discover’ whether or not the E-Crisis is even real and if it is as important as I think it is.
… Kenny
I think Dr. Whitehead’s research presentation provided me with some rudimentary clarifications which are probably much needed here.
First – the need for some kind of temporal specificity. For example – “Epistemological Crisis through September 11, 2001” provides more specificity than the broad “Epistemological Crisis”. Was 9/11 an inflection point or an echo of an existing shift which just amplified / accelerated the shift.
Second – Data vs Empiricism. My lack of familiarity with Empiricism (specifically – Statistics and Statistical analysis) makes a purely empirical project particularly difficult to conceive and develop (at least coherently – probably!). I also have an almost inherent skepticism about statistics (though I acknowledge this might just be a defensive reflection of my lack of familiarity) – regardless though, it makes a purely empirical / statistical approach far more difficult for me.
As was suggested in class – a “theory building” approach is likely a more fruitful prospect. Though, I still don’t exactly know what that will look like!
These are excellent clarifying points, and I appreciate you returning to your post to add them. That’s the kind of thoughtful engagement with your topic that I’m seeking.
As you think through this topic, consider whether your assumption (that there is an epistemological crisis in the U.S.) may cloud your approach to the research. How will you define “crisis”? How will you define “epistemology”? Will these terms have meanings that others will accept as you advance your argument?
Your problem of measurement is real. “Crisis” suggests that you’ll need to measure attitudes and stress levels to understand how the crisis is encountered and experienced. This could lead you to ethnographic research. “Epistemology,” of course, suggests philosophical research, but it could also engage political theory and history, especially as you consider the historical arch of knowledge making, or lack thereof, during particular time periods. In that sense, your unit of measurement might be time on one axis, and anxiety or knowledge making or doubt on another axis.
Your first and most important approach may be to research how knowledge is created and distributed across a particular audience or group by interviewing members of the group to gain a deep understanding of their values and approaches to knowledge acquisition. This is a first step toward understanding epistemology at a grassroots level, which seems useful for advancing an argument more generally.
The complications of ‘defining’ the E-Crisis are threefold (from how I am approaching it):
1. There is an inherent sense of subjectivity – in the words of Potter Stewart – “I know it when I see it”
2. It may be an emergent property (like intelligence) so that defining it as a discreet element would constitute an entire field of study unto itself (if it is even possible).
3. It is a construct of its effects (like gravity) – it is understood by its effects as much as it is by any understanding of its inherent structure.
The examination of the E-crisis is indeed in the realm of Philosophy, but the application of that examination applies across the Social Sciences – politics / sociology / psychology (or so I contend).
One way I have been reflecting on this topic is to associate it with Existential Crisis. Essentially, the idea that the Epistemological Crisis is a social expression (consequence?) of the several Existential Crises expressed by its individual members – It is also possible that each acts as an amplification of the other: The more separate and several Existential Crises that exist within a society the more likely the Epistemological Crisis will emerge. Once the emergence of the Epistemological Crisis occurs, the mutual feedback of Existential Crises and the Epistemological Crisis feeds and amplifies each other.
Yes, I admit to my bias, and so finding a solution to THIS research project which disaggregates a study of the Epistemological Crisis from the component parts which I feel especially connected to (which, frankly, as I perceive it – is connected to my existing in this world – so it is basically everything) would be ideal.
… Kenny
I continue to struggle a bit with “unit of analysis”.
For this project, I feel like I am going to be more productive to continue to assume/presume that the existence of the Epistemological Crisis is real rather than attempting to prove that it is real.
As a “unit of analysis” – it seems almost tautological to suggest “epistemic / epistemological bubbles”.
Essentially – an epistemic (epistemological) bubble can be defined as a cohort of individuals engaged in a unified position (groupthink). For this project – it would necessarily be that a defining feature would be that it be oppositional to some other cohort (Anti-vax / Vaccine Skeptics as oppositional to vaccine adherents – and vice versa in a kind of anti-anti-vax).
I am not sure if this is closer or further away from where I want to be with clarifying my “unit of analysis”.
I am kinda hoping you might be able to provide some insight on what I might be missing here.
… Kenny