“Doubt” in the process of theorization can both provide a basis for rethinking and transformation and, when extended without limit, challenge conceptual stability and the possibility of theoretical judgment. Accordingly, this study critically examines the role of “doubt” in the formation of contemporary architectural theories and seeks to clarify the extent to which doubt can function as a productive force in the rethinking and transformation of theory, as well as the conditions under which it may lead to the weakening of shared foundations and theoretical instability. Drawing on epistemological and theoretical literature from Cartesian methodological doubt and Popperian fallibilism to Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts and contemporary architectural theory the research critically addresses the two opposing dimensions of doubt. The analysis shows that doubt possesses theory-generating potential when it leads to questioning established assumptions, redefining problems, and formulating defensible positions and criteria. By contrast, when doubt turns into the permanent suspension of any foundation or criterion, theory’s capacity to explain, judge, and guide architectural practice is diminished. On this basis, the distinction between “productive doubt” and “destabilizing doubt” is formulated not according to the intensity of doubt, but according to its consequences for the process of theorization. The critical analysis concludes that, in order to remain dynamic, architectural theory requires neither immutable certainties nor a continuous negation of all foundations; rather, it needs a form of critical, provisional, and revisable stability. This framework can provide a basis for evaluating theoretical positions and examining the relationship between critique, theory, and practice in future architectural research.

Keywords: Doubt, Contemporary Architectural Theory, Critical Rethinking, Theoretical Instability.

     

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

---

---