Thanks for going into more detail. I don’t think “epistemic violence” is a good term for this category:
Violence generally describes intentional harm, where as p-hacking and misleading data are not always intentional
Violence generally describes harm that meets a certain threshold—flicking someone is technically violent, but it would be hyperbolic to describe it as such without more context.
I think a better term for this broad category might be “epistemic pollution”, as it describes filling the information environment with negative value stuff. I would be comfortable describing e.g. a confidence scheme or an impersonation scam as epistemic violence, although there would have to be some point to doing so.
In general, I’m skeptical of coining a novel term with strong connotations to try to argue a point—it’s basically the noncentral fallacy.
Thanks for going into more detail. I don’t think “epistemic violence” is a good term for this category:
Violence generally describes intentional harm, where as p-hacking and misleading data are not always intentional
Violence generally describes harm that meets a certain threshold—flicking someone is technically violent, but it would be hyperbolic to describe it as such without more context.
I think a better term for this broad category might be “epistemic pollution”, as it describes filling the information environment with negative value stuff. I would be comfortable describing e.g. a confidence scheme or an impersonation scam as epistemic violence, although there would have to be some point to doing so.
In general, I’m skeptical of coining a novel term with strong connotations to try to argue a point—it’s basically the noncentral fallacy.