Clash of Epistemologies - A radical rabbit hole of consequence

Many authors, jurists, politicians, and pundits have ramped up their rhetorical fears about a constitutional crisis lately. While sounding the alarm, they simultaneously allow more lines in the sand to be crossed in deference to the challengers. I have often wondered if a bright red line really exists beyond which the Rubicon would be forded. I have concluded that we are attempting to define what constitutes a full-blown constitutional crisis amid a clash of epistemologies.

This goes far deeper than battling lies, misinformation, and propaganda, and debunking conspiracy theories. These are symptomatic of a far deeper clash of epistemologies in which the very understanding of human knowledge is challenged; where definitions become fluid, blurred, and meaningless. It strikes at the heart of scientific understanding of human nature, the world, even the universe. Our knowledge of these things is not, nor does it need to be perfect. However, our shared trust in the knowledge accumulated over thousands of years is critical. Such trust has led us to test and prove/disprove hypotheses that have yielded enormous benefits for humanity. Obviously, some discoveries have been used for less-than-optimal purposes. Regardless, the understanding of human knowledge is fundamental to our survival. And this is exactly what the current administration is challenging.

We are witnessing political challenges to who gets to define truth, what counts as evidence, which institutions are trustworthy, and whose experience or worldview is valid. We are witnessing epistemological warfare writ large. It is happening in the scientific community, educational institutions, courts, and journalism, all once considered to be trustworthy arbiters of truth. The challenge is directed at the methods used to determine facts. In support of their reality, they provide alternative facts using online videos, ‘research’ on social media, and evidence from undisclosed insiders or whistleblowers. Religious mythology is often usedas revelatory divine enlightenment.

When societies no longer agree on the process of knowing, they cannot resolve disputes, build consensus, or govern democratically. Fortunately, democratic rule does not rely on everyone agreeing on what we know, it relies on agreeing how we know what we know – a shared epistemology.

Today epistemic fragmentation is hyper-amplified by algorithms that reward attention (social media likes, upvotes, etc.) over accuracy. The internet has given rise to parallel epistemologies - each with their own influencers and heroes. Sophisticated troll farms have infiltrated social media creating their own reality with the help of AI. Political polarization is now reinforced by epistemic identity - “To accept that truth would mean rejecting who I am, where I belong, and what I fight for.”

I would like to think that no one in the clown car administration can work at such a diabolical level but there are a couple of influencers on the periphery who may – Vladimir Putin and Steve Bannon. Neither of them is going away so it is our task to reverse this disturbing trend.

To counter and combat these conflicting epistemologies, we need epistemic bridge-building including transparent institutions, inclusive knowledge systems, emotional intelligence, and new ways to rebuild a shared reality. As AI becomes more powerful and prevalent, the timeframe in which to do these things will diminish proportionately.

My personal recommendation is to start with ditching social media. These platforms are designed and operated to be addictive and manipulative. Their destructive potential far outweighs their positive impacts. Even if you only use it to stay in touch with family members, as the number of followers increases, so does the amount of undisclosed information it collects about you. Subsequently, its influence and manipulation become more targeted, seductive, and difficult to ignore.

---