Commentary examines themes of understanding limitations, modeling critique, and data interpretation in scientific research.
The essay by Shiffrin, Stigler, and Keil (2026) opens a valuable discussion on the limitations of understanding in scientific practice and theory development. Here, we argue that the essay sometimes lacks precision, which in itself may nurture illusions of understanding. The goal of this commentary is therefore to more precisely discuss three themes from the essay: Regression to the mean, the critique of formal modeling, and the nature of researchers’ limitations. We end with a brief outlook on how illusions of understanding could be mitigated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haaf et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: