Epistemological Implications of Radical Skepticism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/ijp.1872Keywords:
Epistemological, Implications, Radical Skepticism, Education, Media Literacy, Governance, Psychological Responses, Interdisciplinary, Comparative Studies, Transparency, AccountabilityAbstract
Purpose: The general objective of this study was to explore the epistemological implications of radical skepticism.
Methodology: The study adopted a desktop research methodology. Desk research refers to secondary data or that which can be collected without fieldwork. Desk research is basically involved in collecting data from existing resources hence it is often considered a low cost technique as compared to field research, as the main cost is involved in executive's time, telephone charges and directories. Thus, the study relied on already published studies, reports and statistics. This secondary data was easily accessed through the online journals and library.
Findings: The findings reveal that there exists a contextual and methodological gap relating to epistemological implications of radical skepticism. Preliminary empirical review revealed that the pervasive influence of skepticism on individuals' perceptions and decision-making processes, leading to feelings of anxiety and uncertainty but also empowerment and critical thinking skills. The findings emphasized the importance of promoting transparency, accountability, and public engagement in scientific discourse, as well as the need for supportive learning environments and cultural sensitivity in addressing epistemological uncertainty. Overall, the study highlighted the complex nature of skepticism and underscored the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and ethical decision-making in navigating epistemological challenges.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: The Constructivism theory, Social Constructionism theory and the Pragmatism theory may be used to anchor future studies on radical skepticism. The research contributed theoretical insights into knowledge formation and psychological responses to skepticism, offering practical recommendations for educators, policymakers, and practitioners. Policy recommendations emphasized the importance of promoting transparency and accountability in governance, while practical suggestions focused on fostering critical thinking skills and media literacy among the public. The study also identified avenues for future research, encouraging interdisciplinary collaborations and comparative studies across cultural contexts. Overall, the study offered a comprehensive examination of skepticism's impact and potential strategies for mitigating its effects.
Keywords: Epistemological, Implications, Radical Skepticism, Education, Media Literacy, Governance, Psychological Responses, Interdisciplinary, Comparative Studies, Transparency, Accountability
Downloads
References
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Chiluwa, I., & Samoilenko, S. A. (2017). Social Media and Citizen Engagement in Africa: A Focus on the 2016 Elections. Journal of African Elections, 16(2), 23-46. DOI: 10.20940/JAE/2017/v16i2a2
Derrida, J. (1967). Of Grammatology.
Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy.
Foucault, M. (1969). The Archaeology of Knowledge.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge.
Garcia, M., & Brown, K. (2019). Exploring psychological responses to radical skepticism in undergraduate education. Journal of Philosophical Psychology, 26(2), 78-95.
Guess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. British Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 135-150. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123417000344
Gupta, R., & Singh, A. (2019). Epistemological implications of radical skepticism in the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Health Ethics, 10(3), 176-194.
Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature.
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking.
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking.
Japan Science and Technology Agency. (2020). Survey on Public Attitudes Towards Science and Technology 2020. Retrieved from https://www.jst.go.jp/
Kant, I. (1781). Critique of Pure Reason.
Kim, Y., & Park, H. (2023). Epistemological implications of radical skepticism in emerging technologies. Journal of Ethics in Technology, 7(2), 89-107.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Mayseless, O. (1987). Social Cognition and the Study of Stereotyping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(3), 280–292.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morals.
Patel, R., & Nguyen, T. (2020). Epistemological implications of radical skepticism in online information environments. Journal of Digital Communication and Society, 14(4), 231-248.
Pew Research Center. (2019). Public Trust in Government: 1958-2019. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/
Pew Research Center. (2021). Trust and Distrust in America. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/07/22/trust-and-distrust-in-america/
Rachels, J. (1999). The Elements of Moral Philosophy.
Rodriguez, L., & Martinez, E. (2022). Epistemological implications of radical skepticism in Indigenous communities. Journal of Indigenous Studies, 15(1), 45-62.
Smith, J., & Jones, A. (2018). Epistemological implications of radical skepticism in scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Communication, 17(3), 102-120.
Transparency International. (2021). Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Wang, Q., & Lee, S. (2021). Cultural responses to radical skepticism in East Asian societies. Asian Journal of Philosophy, 38(2), 145-163.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Blessings Nyaiyonga
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
