Doubt is amental state in which themind remains suspended between two or morecontradictorypropositions, and isuncertain about them.[1][better source needed] Doubt on anemotional level is indecision betweenbelief anddisbelief. It may involveuncertainty,distrust or lack of conviction on certainfacts, actions, motives, ordecisions. Doubt can result in delaying or rejecting relevant action out of concern for mistakes or missed opportunities.
Partial or intermittent negativereinforcement can create an effectiveclimate of fear and doubt.[2]
Descartes employedCartesian doubt as a pre-eminent methodological tool in his fundamental philosophical investigations. Branches of philosophy likelogic devote much effort to distinguish the dubious, theprobable and the certain. Much of illogic rests on dubious assumptions, dubious data or dubious conclusions, withrhetoric,whitewashing, anddeception playing their accustomed roles.
In his posthumous workOn Certainty (OC),Ludwig Wittgenstein describes how our everyday use of the words ‘doubt’ and ‘certainty’ function. The two concepts are interwoven into our daily lives such that if we cannot be certain of any fact, then we cannot be certain of the meaning of our words either. (OC §114).
Doubt as a path towards (deeper)belief lies at the heart of the story of SaintThomas the Apostle. Note in this respect the theological views ofGeorg Hermes:
... the starting-point and chief principle of every science, and hence of theology also, is not only methodical doubt, but positive doubt. One can believe only what one has perceived to be true from reasonable grounds, and consequently one must have the courage to continue doubting until one has found reliable grounds to satisfy the reason.[3]
Doubt that god(s) exist may form the basis ofagnosticism — the belief that one cannot determine the existence or non-existence of god(s). It may also form other brands ofskepticism, such asPyrrhonism, which do not take a positive stance in regard to the existence of god(s), but remain negative. Alternatively, doubt over the existence of god(s) may lead to acceptance of a particular religion: comparePascal's Wager. Doubt of a specific theology, scriptural or deistic, may bring into question the truth of that theology's set of beliefs. On the other hand, doubt as to some doctrines but acceptance of others may lead to the growth ofheresy and/or the splitting off ofsects or groups of thought. Thusproto-Protestants doubtedpapal authority, and substituted alternative methods of governance in their new (but still recognizably similar) churches.
Christian existentialists such asSøren Kierkegaard suggest that for one to truly have belief in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the belief would have no real substance. Belief is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such evidence could ever be enough to pragmatically justify the kind of total commitment involved in true theological belief or romantic love. Belief involves making that commitment anyway. Kierkegaard thought that to have belief is at the same time to have doubt.[4][5]
Mostcriminal cases within anadversarial system require that the prosecution proves its contentionsbeyond a reasonable doubt — a doctrine also called the "burden of proof". This means that the State must present propositions which preclude "reasonable doubt" in the mind of areasonable person as to the guilt of defendant. Some doubt may persist, but only to the extent that it wouldnot affect a "reasonable person's" belief in the defendant's guilt. If the doubt raiseddoes affect a "reasonable person's" belief, the jury is not satisfied beyond a "reasonable doubt". Thejurisprudence of the applicable jurisdiction usually defines the precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" for such purposes.
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
—Henri Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis (1905) (from Dover abridged edition of 1952)
Thescientific method regularly quantifies[citation needed] doubt, and uses it to determine whetherfurther research is needed.Isaac Asimov, in his 1962 essay collectionFact and Fancy, described science as a system for causing and resolving intelligent doubt.[6]
Charles Peirce saw doubt as the starting point of any scientific investigation.[7]Karl Popper deployed scientific doubt as an essential tool: scientists working in the Popperian paradigm doubt any theory so thoroughly that they strive to falsify that theory.[8]
A state in which the mind is suspended between two contradictory propositions and unable to assent to either of them.
[...] scientific doubt and belief [...] mark the beginning and the end of a scientific investigation, a process which [Peirce] calls 'inquiry.'
Following Karl popper's scientific method [...] would suggest that any scientific theory should be falsifiable, and tested and made acceptable through repeated experiments, any one of which could prove it wrong.
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
