Doubt is essential for science – but for politicians, it's a sign of weakness | Jim Al-Khalili https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/21/doubt-essential-science-politicians-coronavirus?CMP=share_btn_tw

This discussion reminded me of an old concern that maybe history teaching does not do enough to help students realise that uncertainty is at the core of historical study, that too often that ideas is implicit rather than being explicit enough to challenge students’ assumptions.

My starting point is that students may well assume that history, like tables, is fundamentally about knowing things for certain – dates for example. And we can be certain that Hastings was fought on Saturday 14th October. But can we be certain about why William won at Hastings?

Y7 students may be encouraged to think so by questions asking why William won – the wording makes certainty implicit – so maybe more questions are needed that ask ‘Why can’t we be certain about …?’ or ‘Why might …?’ or ‘what is the most likely explanation why …’

Building uncertainty into history tasks and assessment much more explicitly may help give students a much stronger understanding of the nature of historical study and why those wretchedly uncertain historians will insist on disagreeing of developing new interpretations.

In a broader sense this may also help nudge the curriculum more towards helping students grow into adults who are more comfortable with uncertainty instead of seeking desperately for comfortable but unrealistic and impossible certainties.

Another conclusion is that i like uncertainty because I'm useless at making my mind up! But read the article anyway, especially for the point about scientific method in the Middle Ages - another reason to not to be taken in by the idea of all change thanks to the Renaissance.