The Idealist Method ; La Méthode idéaliste ; The Idealist Method: What if the truth was more nuanced? Method in the broad sense, more adjusted, more lively and more open to the fields of knowledge ; La Méthode idéaliste: Et si la vérité était plus nuancée ? Méthode au sens large, plus ajusté, plus vivant et plus ouvert des domaines du savoir

“The idealist method” is the one that would above all offer us a return of thought to itself, as the only condition of truth and affirmation of reality. With regard to change and life, this universal recipe gives recognized priority to absolute rules, in the name of a rational, immobilist and permanent dogmatism which, for a long time, engages, in many respects, the idea of uniqueness of scientific canons. This assumes that this universal recipe for certainty is perhaps the only one that should govern all global scientific activities, or that any research and knowledge production process should follow. This is probably a kind of "increasing modeling" of knowledge according to a very old vision of philosophy which claimed to be able to possess the truth and the science of things in an absolute way. So here is the common base (that is to say, referential, real, identical, unique) to which everyone should subscribe, knowingly or not. But does the dogmatic application of scientific canons make it possible to sufficiently take into account the complex objects necessary for the study of human specificities? Isn't this tradition so rigid and sharp, brought to freeze any creative effort, strictly adapted to the conditions specific to each moment, to each people, and to each individual? How can we participate in transforming this mechanical device into a “becoming”, that is to say, into a more adjusted, more lively and more open conception of the method? Is it not desirable to proceed with the revision, or better still, with the “subversion” (Frantz Fanon/ Matthieu Renault) of this paradigm for a more lively and more open conception of the world? Isn't there a case for "deontologization" (Frantz Fanon/Matthieu Renault) or "adjustment of science according to the situation" (Feyerabend Paul) to liberate, in the end, the human innovation capacities? It does not seem, in any case, quite obvious that one can justify that science can only progress in one direction, to speak, for example, like Claire Joubert for whom "science ...