Imam knowledge, as one of the pillars of the principle of Imamate in Shiite theology, has been confronted in the contemporary era with reductionist readings that limit this concept to conventional human knowledge. This research aims to critically analyze the epistemological and methodological foundations of these readings, focusing on the views of Seyyed Hossein Modarresi Tabatabaei and Mohsen Kadivar. The research method is descriptive-analytical with a critical approach and data collection in the form of a library. The findings show that these readings are based on incorrect epistemological foundations such as reducing human perceptual capacity to empirical matters, denying the knowledge of the unseen, and limiting the sources of knowledge to human matters, and they benefit from phenomenological methodology and extreme historicism, which leads to selectivity in sources and the imposition of extra-religious assumptions. Criticism of these foundations reveals that such an approach is in conflict with the Quranic, narrative, and historical evidence of Shiite Islam and weakens the Imamiyya epistemological system. In contrast, the alternative holistic model emphasizes the combination of diverse sources of Imam's knowledge (Quran, Sunnah, Ladanian knowledge, inspiration) and presents a balanced picture of Imamate by distinguishing between independent and mediated knowledge of the unseen. This research suggests that in order to escape reductionism, traditional theological methodology should be revived with a focus on reason and authentic narrations in order to respond to contemporary challenges.