You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The author discusses the management of uncertainty in research and begins by pointing out that uncertainty is the effect of the dilemma between stasis, the past conditioned by causality, and flux: the uncertain future was a central albeit sometimes latent theme among philosophers, poets, artists and scientists alike. He argues that scientists do not deal with certainty, based on what they consider to be infallible data, but instead constantly deal with uncertainty, based on theoretical hypotheses and on what they know are intrinsically mixed data. He then shows the difference between the frequentist approach of going from data to theory, which can make science appear to be a deductive yes/no activity, and the Bayesian approach, which uses theory as a guide to new paths of observation. He states that astrophysical research has been fruitful thanks to this attitude towards uncertainty, which allows us to take into account paradoxes, the negative, “white noise”, black holes and work in the blurred border zones of interdisciplinarity. The reversal of linear categorizations by today’s physicists thus brings their work closer to that of a “cosmic psychoanalysis”, as they strive to explore the dark and violent parts of the Universe in order to understand its characteristics of birth and youth by solving enigmas that in turn open up others. Finally, the author argues that science must be democratized and opened up to as many people as possible, expressing his fears about the risk of information dominating the public arena to the detriment of thought.