R0051/2026-03-31/Q003/SRC01/E01¶
Vandenberghe explicitly frames three epistemological challenges as unsolved, documenting the gap.
URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2025.2492729
Extract¶
Vandenberghe (2025) identifies three "deep-rooted challenges" to fact-checking's epistemological basis: (1) degrees of objectivism, (2) truth regimes, and (3) causal relations. These are framed as unsolved problems requiring resolution, not as solved challenges with existing frameworks.
The paper notes that "conventional fact-checking practices rely on epistemological assumptions that factual claims can be easily separated from interpretive or normative statements and that verification can proceed on the basis of clear empirical evidence, yet many contemporary forms of misinformation are embedded in value-laden narratives that elude simple factual correction."
This constitutes explicit documentation of the gap — a leading scholar in 2025 is still defining the epistemological challenges rather than applying established frameworks to solve them.
Relevance to Hypotheses¶
| Hypothesis | Relationship | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| H1 | Contradicts | Documents the gap but does not propose formal solution |
| H2 | Strongly supports | Explicit gap documentation without GRADE-like solution |
| H3 | Strongly contradicts | Clear evidence of gap documentation |
Context¶
The paper's existence as a 2025 publication on "unsolved" epistemological challenges is itself evidence that the gap has been documented. If frameworks existed, the paper would reference and build on them rather than framing challenges as unsolved.