Scholarlink

<p>Speaking of a&#xa0;crisis of evidence presupposes that there was once such a&#xa0;thing as flawless evidence. This premise is untenable. In this article, it is argued that the expansion of knowledge in the modern era is rather based on—and results in—the fact that, in a&#xa0;sense, evidence is in a&#xa0;permanent state of crisis. It can be questioned, expanded, revised or improved at any time. This gives rise to a&#xa0;pluralisation of epistemological orders, which is driven not least by the production of research evidence and which cannot authoritatively be sorted from a&#xa0;single point of view. Coexistence and entanglement, interaction and collision of different epistemological orders is the normal state of affairs in modern societies. And this brings us to the conclusion that the heterodox counter-knowledge and ‘alternative facts’ of climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, advocates of homeopathy, or opponents of evolutionary theory are to be understood less as a&#xa0;crisis of evidence than as a&#xa0;revolt against specifically modern forms of evidence production and the impositions they entail.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Krise der Evidenz?

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月22日

查看全文
  • Peter Strohschneider

摘要

Speaking of a crisis of evidence presupposes that there was once such a thing as flawless evidence. This premise is untenable. In this article, it is argued that the expansion of knowledge in the modern era is rather based on—and results in—the fact that, in a sense, evidence is in a permanent state of crisis. It can be questioned, expanded, revised or improved at any time. This gives rise to a pluralisation of epistemological orders, which is driven not least by the production of research evidence and which cannot authoritatively be sorted from a single point of view. Coexistence and entanglement, interaction and collision of different epistemological orders is the normal state of affairs in modern societies. And this brings us to the conclusion that the heterodox counter-knowledge and ‘alternative facts’ of climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, advocates of homeopathy, or opponents of evolutionary theory are to be understood less as a crisis of evidence than as a revolt against specifically modern forms of evidence production and the impositions they entail.