Oddly, for something you describe as a "spiritual road", this process of holding only tentatively to your conclusions almost perfectly describes the scientific method--and it is as hard-nosed and crunchy of an approach as you can come by, backed up (in most cases) by statistical support.

Of course, we scientists are people too, and subject to all the same impulses to rush to judgment, to reward themselves for being correct when what they've actually perceived is far less. And to the extent that it's ego-driven, most scientists have a significant ego resulting from a lot of (justified, objective) evidence that they're pretty darn smart.

However, I'm not sure we would feel all that comfortable with the "ride loose in the saddle" descriptor. I certainly don't. The outcome is the same, but the process is tight, meticulous: what evidence do I have for this? What other hypotheses are there? How well do I understand this process--can I even formulate the relevant hypotheses? What observation can I make that might help distinguish between hypotheses?

It feels anything but loose to embrace uncertainty. Loose (and sloppy) is to glom on to whatever careless opinion might arise in one's heard, absent careful evidence.