The Notion of Intellectual Rigor: A Systemic/Cybernetic Approach

Nagib Callaos

The main objectives of this article are 1) to show that the notion of rigor has not been adequately addressed, let alone in the context of “intellectual rigor” and that when it is addressed in Science, it is done in an evidently wrong way and even violating the most basic and elemental Predicate Logic, and 2) to show that we can briefly describe a general notion or rigor (including intellectual rigor) as “achieving objectives” while being restricted by principles (e.g., axioms, natural laws, accepted theories, etc.) and constraints (e.g., disciplinary semiotic systems and methods, environmental limitations, etc.)

An additional objective of this article is to initiate a conceptual, notional, intellectual, and/or semantic clarification of “Intellectual Rigor”, i.e. the purpose is to initiate a thematizing process on this intellectually and pragmatically important conception, idea, or notion. The pragmatic value of this clarification process is especially required for peer-reviewing in scientific, technological, humanism, and philosophical publishing. This is even more important for inter-and trans-disciplinary research and communication. Disciplines usually have their own semiotic disciplinary systems which usually provide the means for peer-reviewing. Even so, in a survey of members of the Scientific Research Society, “only 8% agreed that ‘peer review works well as it is’.” (Chubin & J., 1990, p. 192) [Italics added]. Isn’t this situation requiring some research in order to improve it? Should this research not be started with trans-disciplinary research related to clarifying the notion of Intellectual Rigor?

We will try to give an initial baby step oriented to trigger this kind of collective research. We will do it by means of briefly describing the notions of “Intellect” and “Rigor” with the purpose of trying a tentative initial description of “Intellectual Rigor”, with the hope to trigger some reflections and reflexions on this issue, as well as to collect feedback, criticism, more details, other intellectual perspectives, and potentially some collective co-learning and research on this very important issue.

Full Text