Abstract
The author argues that, though social scientists generally value tolerance for ambiguity, and some even assert a fundamental indeterminacy in human systems, there is still a discipline-wide discomfort with uncertainty and ambiguity. It is argued that this distaste for uncertainty derives from a distorted view of the classical physical sciences, a view that ignores the essentially critical and radical foundations of scientific practice. The drive for certainty, it is argued, is essentially unscientific, in that certain, or adequate, forms of knowledge can only recapitulate the already known and in their dogmatic and institutionalized forms prevent the development of genuinely new knowledge. In contrast, uncertainty is defended as a positive condition, generative of new knowledge because it is open to discovery and to the mystery of the other. The conclusion drawn from this analysis is that the social sciences can only progress if uncertainty, or mystery, is protected and cultivated through a scientific discourse constituted in local and concrete terms (rather than in general and universal ones) and through a self-reflective and self-critical research praxis.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Psychological Association. (2007). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 10, 2010 from: httt://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/about/psymajor-guidelines.pdf.
Elstrup, O. (2010). The ways of humans: the emergence of sense and common sense through language production. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 44(1), 82–95.
Glimcher, P. (2005). Indeterminacy in brain and behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 25–56.
Koch, S. (1981). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: lessons of a century qua ‘science’. American Psychologist, 36(3), 257–269.
Kohler, A. (2010). To think human out of the machine paradigm: homo ex machina. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 44(1), 39–57.
Levinas, E. (1997). Otherwise than being: or beyond essence. (A. Lingis, Trans.). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. (Original work published 1981).
Märtsin, M. (2010). Rupturing otherness: becoming Estonian in the context of contemporary Britain. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 44(1), 65–81.
Neuman, Y. (2010). Empathy: from mind reading to the reading of a distant text. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 44(3).
Peirce, C. (1935). Collected papers. Vol. I. Principles of Philosophy. In: C. Hartshorne, & P. Weiss (Eds.). Oxford England: Harvard Univ. Press.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Oxford England: Basic Books.
Smith, D. (1991). Indeterminacy in psychology. Psychological Reports, 69(3, Pt 1), 771–777.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clegg, J.W. Uncertainty as a Fundamental Scientific Value. Integr. psych. behav. 44, 245–251 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-010-9135-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-010-9135-6