Search results

In history, the idea of uncertainty has taken on many forms, both in the methodological field, with for example the definition of historical sources as traces, and in epistemological terms, with the major question of causality or even ontological with the infinite extension of the "historian's territory". Nevertheless, more than an operative notion perhaps, it has long remained as an invariant, a kind of epistemological madguard (a "residue" according to the term adopted by Marc Bloch) of historical knowledge. The question of the historicization of the idea of uncertainty in the historical discipline is related to the place assigned to it in the epistemology of historians, always in tension with the desire for scientificity and truth that has long structured the disciplinarization and professionalization of history. Where do we place the cursor between uncertainty and truth for historical knowledge? This could be the guiding question to periodize the place of the idea of uncertainty in history and roughly distinguish after a predominantly scientist phase linked to the professionalization of the historical discipline (19th-first 20th century), a phase of doubts about history's ability to tell the truth, which became clear at the end of the 1970s and could conveniently be characterized as the great reversal of uncertainty in history, which, from an embarrassing limitation to reducing as much as possible, became an operating principle for defatalising history. However, it will be necessary to question this periodization, more or less modelled on the general evolutions of the sciences, marked in particular by the rise in power of probabilistic and indeterministic approaches and more or less directly related to what is perceived by the majority as the rise of uncertainty in the historical world itself ; this will require taking into account another level of analysis that adds to the weight of uncertainty in history, the moral and political dimension around the question of the social function of history.

Architecture is made to support certain activities. This article looks at ways in which questions of the uncertain or the indeterminate might be considered in the design process. The architectural drawing is a rehearsal of the architecture it represents. The discussion here is about
how the maker and the tools search for ways of drawing to rehearse the sorts of engagement we might have with architecture that could nurture an indeterminate condition. This is studied through the invention of seven types of drawing instrument. The early versions represent an indeterminate
relationship with architecture while the later instruments nurture an indeterminate engagement through the act of drawing. Indeterminacy is a condition of uncertainty. At first the instruments concentrate on working with the sublime, an existential uncertainty. In order to understand the spatial
potential of picturing there is extended research into the natural history diorama. In parallel to lessons on projective geometry, the dioramas provide a convincing case for the power of the uncanny, an intellectual uncertainty. The lessons from these studies, embodied in Instruments Two and
Three, achieved what had been set out in the initial question but also provided new questions, especially about the experience of making the drawing. The later instruments project paint rather than light and provide an engagement with the person who is drawing that is analogous to the condition
that is being drawn. The process of drawing becomes a rehearsal for inhabiting the architecture.

This paper exploits a data rich environment to provide direct econometric estimates of time-varying macroeconomic uncertainty. Our estimates display significant independent variations from popular uncertainty proxies, suggesting that much of the variation in the proxies is not driven by uncertainty. Quantitatively important uncertainty episodes appear far more infrequently than indicated by popular uncertainty proxies, but when they do occur, they are larger, more persistent, and are more correlated with real activity. Our estimates provide a benchmark to evaluate theories for which uncertainty shocks play a role in business cycles. (JEL C53, D81, E32, G12, G35, L25)