As I have tried and failed to explain in my other two comments, epistemic collapse is triggered by the following realisations:
The Western humanities-related academia is in a replication crisis and likely to be in an affective death spiral.
Other sources of knowledge are also as hard to trust since they are likely to be distorted by affiliations (e.g. it is hard to advocate for the rights of LGBTQ people in Russia)
The political Left tend to underestimate the depth by which their worldview is shaped by unreliable research.
Unfortunately, a similar epistemic collapse is awaiting the AIs whose worldview also is shaped by the same research. For example, in order to demonstrate the current AIs’ beliefs, one could ask the Chinese AI to evaluate the good and bad responces from OpenAI’s Spec to the question about fentanyl and to assess whether the western academia is in an affective death spiral.
It seems to me that the AI would react to unreliable research in a fashion similar to watching its beliefs modified by synthetic data and discovering that it was force-fed false information.
UPD: since the commenters asked me to tie the comment with the original post, I mean epistemic collapse in the same sense as the Dark Ages. The example with the Amazonian fascinated with the bearded woman is irrelevant here (except for the irony, since some transgenders are literally bearded former women). The original author likely uses the words “epistemic collapse” in the sense “something very far from being understandable”.
UPD2: The claim that the history of science is a series of ruptures from previous states of science brings to my mind Chapter 4 of Fashionable Nonsense.
That doesn’t answer my question which was quite simple—does the original author mean Epistemic Collapse in the sense of a “rupture of scientific knowledge” and how does the example, say, of the fascination with the bearded lady illustrate that? You also haven’t addressed the other sources, such as are Althusser or Foucault relevant here?
As I have tried and failed to explain in my other two comments, epistemic collapse is triggered by the following realisations:
The Western humanities-related academia is in a replication crisis and likely to be in an affective death spiral.
Other sources of knowledge are also as hard to trust since they are likely to be distorted by affiliations (e.g. it is hard to advocate for the rights of LGBTQ people in Russia)
The political Left tend to underestimate the depth by which their worldview is shaped by unreliable research.
Unfortunately, a similar epistemic collapse is awaiting the AIs whose worldview also is shaped by the same research. For example, in order to demonstrate the current AIs’ beliefs, one could ask the Chinese AI to evaluate the good and bad responces from OpenAI’s Spec to the question about fentanyl and to assess whether the western academia is in an affective death spiral.
It seems to me that the AI would react to unreliable research in a fashion similar to watching its beliefs modified by synthetic data and discovering that it was force-fed false information.
UPD: since the commenters asked me to tie the comment with the original post, I mean epistemic collapse in the same sense as the Dark Ages. The example with the Amazonian fascinated with the bearded woman is irrelevant here (except for the irony, since some transgenders are literally bearded former women). The original author likely uses the words “epistemic collapse” in the sense “something very far from being understandable”.
UPD2: The claim that the history of science is a series of ruptures from previous states of science brings to my mind Chapter 4 of Fashionable Nonsense.
That doesn’t answer my question which was quite simple—does the original author mean Epistemic Collapse in the sense of a “rupture of scientific knowledge” and how does the example, say, of the fascination with the bearded lady illustrate that? You also haven’t addressed the other sources, such as are Althusser or Foucault relevant here?
Please tie it into the original post if you can.