This image captures Trump's controversial claim about immigrants eating pets during a heated, televised debate with his opponent for presidency, Kamala Harris. Such unsubstantiated assertions starkly contrast with evidence-based communication essential in academic and professional writing. This example illustrates the complex interplay between rhetoric, emotion, and factual evidence in public discourse. It demonstrates how speakers might prioritize emotional impact or ideological alignment over verifiable truth, whether due to poor information literacy, strategic communication choices, or a genuine belief in unverified claims. This image captures Trump's controversial claim about immigrants eating pets during a heated, televised debate with his opponent for the presidency, Kamala Harris. Such unsubstantiated assertions contrast sharply with evidence-based communication, which is essential in academic and professional writing. This example illustrates how truth can be shaped by belief (subjectivism), where conviction overrides evidence, or by strategy (pragmatism), where truth is defined by its utility rather than factual accuracy. It underscores the critical importance of evaluating evidence in both creating and consuming information across all contexts. This incident underscores the critical importance of evidence evaluation in both creating and consuming information across all contexts.
Research is the pursuit of new knowledge, yet the criteria for what counts as “true” or “valid” vary greatly across methodological communities. Each group—whether The Creatives (creative methods), The Designers (design research), The Empiricists (empirical research), The Interpreters (qualitative research), The Scientists (quantitative research), The Integrators (mixed methods), or The Scholars (scholarly research)—carries its own assumptions and values (or “axiologies”) about how to distinguish well-founded knowledge claims from mere information, belief, or opinion.
This matters because the way truth claims are justified not only affects the outcomes of research but also shapes debates about what constitutes reliable knowledge.
In practice, many researchers draw on more than one epistemology. For example, The Scholars might blend dialectical and hermeneutic approaches to debate literary texts, while The Scientists can incorporate post-positivist ideas to acknowledge biases in their quantitative work. By examining these frameworks, anyone engaged in research can better articulate how their methods justify truth claims and why disagreements about “what’s true” often hinge on underlying epistemological assumptions.
Related Concepts
- Epistemology – Theories of Knowledge
- Information Evaluation – How to Critically Evaluate Information
- The CRAAP Test – Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose
- News vs. Opinion – How to Distinguish News from Opinion
- Facts vs. Opinion – How to Distinguish Facts from Opinion
- SIFT – Stop, Investigate, Find, Trace Claims
Aesthetic Epistemology
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- They rely on aesthetic insight, emotional resonance, and communal reception.
- A claim about an artwork’s meaning or effect is warranted if it evokes a deep, shared experience among those engaging with it.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- Objective finality isn’t the goal; interpretations can shift.
- Discussion centers on whether an aesthetic reading “rings true” within creative and critical communities.
Example
- “This painting conveys the anguish of war” is justified if viewers and critics collectively sense that anguish through the artwork’s aesthetic qualities.
Constructivism
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Researchers see knowledge as co-constructed.
- A claim is valid if a community collaboratively negotiates its meaning to fit shared experiences and context.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- Truth is provisional and reshaped by ongoing interaction.
- Different voices continually refine or challenge the claim, so consensus may shift over time.
Example
- A design team claims “Participants find our interface easy to use.” The statement is grounded in iterative feedback—if enough users confirm it, the claim holds, at least for that group.
Critical Theory
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Critical theorists focus on power and ideology.
- A claim is compelling if it reveals oppressive structures or contributes to social emancipation.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- No claim is ever neutral; all are tested against whose interests they serve.
- “Truth” is continually re-evaluated through critique.
Example
- A policy claimed to “benefit all workers” is scrutinized to determine whether it truly aids marginalized groups or merely upholds the status quo.
Dialectic
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Thinkers rely on resolving contradictions (thesis vs. antithesis → synthesis).
- A claim grows stronger by addressing opposing viewpoints.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- Debate is essential—each synthesis can become a new thesis, prompting further challenges.
- Truth is viewed as an ongoing process rather than a final endpoint.
Example
- When one group claims a proposed law is flawless and another points out significant flaws, dialectical reasoning forges a balanced solution that transcends both extremes.
Embodied Cognition
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Researchers align claims with real, bodily experience.
- A claim is justified if it convincingly explains or matches sensorimotor evidence.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- Acceptance remains tentative, subject to new contexts or additional physical data.
- Concrete replication of observed embodied interactions is key.
Example
- “Acting out a physics principle helps students grasp it more effectively than reading alone.” If repeated classroom tests confirm improved understanding through movement, the claim holds.
Empiricism
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Empiricists rely on systematic observation and measurement.
- A claim stands if it consistently appears under controlled conditions and withstands falsification attempts.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- Debate is resolved by robust data, although new evidence may always prompt revision.
Example
- “Therapy X reduces depression” is justified when multiple controlled studies yield consistent findings.
Expressivism
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Expressivists focus on the authenticity of self-expression.
- A statement is “true” if it powerfully communicates the speaker’s or artist’s inner reality and resonates with an audience.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- There is no formal proof beyond the depth of authenticity.
- Debate centers on the genuineness of the expression rather than on empirical verification.
Example
- A poet’s line, “I feel suffocated by loss,” stands as true if it authentically reflects the poet’s experience and evokes a similar response in readers.
Hermeneutics
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Hermeneutic scholars use interpretive depth and coherence.
- A reading of a text or phenomenon gains credibility if it compellingly accounts for contextual, historical, and linguistic details.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- Interpretations are continually open to challenge.
- A persuasive account remains valid until superseded by one that illuminates even more aspects of the subject.
Example
- “This historical document subtly critiques imperial authority” is justified by analyzing language, cross-referencing other works, and situating the text in its historical context.
Humanistic Epistemology
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Humanistic researchers judge a claim by how well it fosters personal growth, empathy, or human dignity.
- Well-being is the main criterion for validation.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- Debates focus on whether a claim genuinely promotes flourishing rather than causing harm.
- Demonstrable benefit is more important than absolute certainty.
Example
- “This counseling method empowers clients to find meaning after trauma” is validated if it demonstrably improves clients’ lives.
Interpretivism
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Interpretivists look for how thoroughly a claim captures participants’ lived meanings within a specific context.
- Detailed, contextual descriptions build credibility.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- No interpretation is ever final; multiple readings may coexist.
- Credibility is based on depth rather than universality.
Example
- “Residents define success as contributing to communal welfare” is justified if extensive interviews and observations consistently reveal this perspective.
Phenomenology
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Phenomenologists describe the essence of lived experience by “bracketing” assumptions.
- A claim is valid if it faithfully reflects direct, first-person accounts.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- Findings remain open to reinterpretation.
- Intersubjective resonance among participants strengthens the claim’s credibility.
Example
- “Patients describe chronic pain as an ever-present ‘throb’” is supported when multiple first-person accounts converge on that experience.
Positivism
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Positivists use systematic observation and experimentation.
- A claim is verified under controlled conditions and must be replicable.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- The aim is to establish replicable, law-like statements.
- Claims remain open to revision if new data emerge.
Example
- “Acceleration equals force divided by mass” is upheld by repeated experiments in physics labs.
Post-Positivism
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Post-positivists maintain that an external reality exists but can be known only imperfectly.
- They employ critical testing, falsification, and triangulation to build confidence in a claim.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- Certainty is always provisional—claims are robust yet subject to further refinement in light of new evidence.
Example
- “Medication X generally lowers blood pressure” is supported by multiple studies and meta-analyses while remaining open to re-evaluation.
Pragmatism
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Pragmatists define truth in terms of practical success.
- A claim is valid if it effectively solves problems or yields beneficial outcomes in real-world contexts.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- All assertions are contingent on practical results.
- If an approach ceases to work, it is revised or replaced.
Example
- “Turning part of the city street into a pedestrian plaza will reduce accidents” is validated if accident rates fall and community satisfaction increases.
Rationalism
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Rationalists rely on deductive reasoning and logical consistency.
- A statement is accepted if it follows necessarily from axiomatic principles or self-evident truths.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- Debates focus on definitions and the soundness of proofs.
- Within a closed system, certainty can be high, though its real-world application may be less straightforward.
Example
- “In Euclidean geometry, a triangle’s angles sum to 180°” is true by logical necessity within that system.
Subjectivism
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Subjectivists hold that each individual is the final judge of their own truth.
- No external standard can override personal perspective.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- An individual’s certainty is internal and self-contained.
- Differing subjective truths cannot be reconciled by a universal rule.
Example
- “I feel guided by fate to choose this career” is accepted as true by the individual, irrespective of external validation.
Dialogism
How do proponents evaluate or ground truth claims?
- Dialogists see knowledge as co-created through ongoing conversation.
- A claim’s validity emerges as multiple voices engage and refine it over time.
Role of Debate and Certainty
- Debate is inherent—each new perspective can reshape the collective understanding.
- No final conclusion exists; truth remains in continual flux.
Example
- An ethics panel on AI crafts guidelines that are deemed “valid” as they integrate diverse stakeholder inputs, until further discussion prompts revision.
