Better to be uncertain than certain and wrong

Researchers cannot escape uncertainty

Uncertainty is a paradox. On one hand, it is a potent and powerful force that motivates research, a need to know. The gratifying result of research is evidence used to guide practice and policy.

On the other hand, uncertainty always remains after research because of the inherent complexity and ambiguity of the real world. So policy-makers and practitioners are (or ought to be) troubled about inevitable residual doubt. Examples include what to do about climate change, what body mass index is ideal and whether to test for prostate cancer.

Why uncertainty remains

Research may help reduce uncertainty, but it can never provide certainty. Research is an errorful process that peers into an obscure reality.

Inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning?

There are two ways that we come to have knowledge. One is by reasoning from repeated observations (inductive), the other is by ensuring the conclusion follows validly from the premises (deductive). 

The two are inextricably linked. Each makes an argument that helps advance our knowledge of the world.

More surprisingly, each argument fails by the standards of the other!

Inductive vs deductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning is about coming to a conclusion from specific instances (empirical data), deductive reasoning is about coming to a conclusion from premises (logical reasoning).