Epistemological Implications of Radical Skepticism

Blessings Nyaiyonga
{"title":"Epistemological Implications of Radical Skepticism","authors":"Blessings Nyaiyonga","doi":"10.47941/ijp.1872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The general objective of this study was to explore the epistemological implications of radical skepticism. \nMethodology: 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. \nFindings: 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. \nUnique 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. \nKeywords: Epistemological, Implications, Radical Skepticism, Education, Media Literacy, Governance, Psychological Responses, Interdisciplinary, Comparative Studies, Transparency, Accountability","PeriodicalId":512816,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Philosophy","volume":"36 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47941/ijp.1872","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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
激进怀疑论的认识论含义
目的:本研究的总体目标是探讨激进怀疑论对认识论的影响。研究方法:本研究采用案头研究方法。案头研究指的是二手数据或无需实地考察即可收集到的数据。案头研究基本上是从现有资源中收集数据,因此,与实地研究相比,案头研究通常被认为是一种低成本技术,因为主要成本涉及行政人员的时间、电话费和目录。因此,本研究依赖于已出版的研究、报告和统计数据。这些二手数据可通过在线期刊和图书馆轻松获取。研究结果:研究结果表明,在激进怀疑论的认识论影响方面存在着背景和方法上的差距。初步实证审查显示,怀疑论对个人的认知和决策过程具有普遍影响,导致焦虑和不确定感,但也增强了能力和批判性思维技能。研究结果强调了在科学讨论中促进透明度、问责制和公众参与的重要性,以及在解决认识论不确定性时需要支持性的学习环境和文化敏感性。总之,这项研究突出了怀疑论的复杂性,强调了跨学科合作和道德决策在应对认识论挑战方面的重要性。对理论、实践和政策的独特贡献:建构主义理论、社会建构主义理论和实用主义理论可用于今后对激进怀疑论的研究。研究对知识的形成和怀疑主义的心理反应提出了理论见解,为教育工作者、政策制定者和实践者提供了实用建议。政策建议强调了促进治理透明度和问责制的重要性,而实践建议则侧重于培养公众的批判性思维能力和媒体素养。研究还确定了今后的研究方向,鼓励跨学科合作和跨文化背景的比较研究。总之,该研究全面探讨了怀疑主义的影响以及减轻其影响的潜在策略。关键词认识论 影响 激进怀疑论 教育 媒体素养 治理 心理反应 跨学科 比较研究 透明度 问责制
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信