Nov 3, 2026 11:08 PM
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1150277
EXCERPT: “The illusion that a scientist has a valid and complete explanation tends to be magnified when the data is well described by mathematical and computer simulation models,” the authors write. They note that predictive success can sometimes create the impression of deeper understanding than actually exists because “prediction does not imply causality, but gives the illusion that it does.”
This assertion may appear counterintuitive given science’s extraordinary achievements. Modern medicine, communications technology, transportation systems, and countless other advances have transformed daily life through scientific discovery.
However, the authors contend that incomplete understanding and scientific progress often coexist. “This limited understanding is nonetheless sufficient to explain how science has produced amazing progress with enormous benefits to society,” Shiffrin said.
The authors depict science as a process of gradually improving explanations, rather than as a collection of absolute truths. Researchers build models, test hypotheses, gather new evidence, revise earlier assumptions, and move incrementally toward deeper understanding.
The consequences of overestimating understanding extend beyond academic debates. According to the authors, assumptions about what scientists know can influence nearly every stage of the research process, from experimental design and theory development, to teaching and communication.
“It makes a case that the many incomplete levels of understanding affect, often unwittingly, the ways scientists design experiments, test theories, comprehend, communicate, and teach,” the authors observe.
The topic resonated widely within the scientific community. The essay attracted 32 published commentaries from researchers across multiple fields, an unusually robust response that prompted the three authors to prepare a collective reply.
The discussion reflects a longstanding interest in the strengths and limitations of human cognition. Recognizing those limitations, the authors assert, can ultimately strengthen science rather than weaken it... (MORE - missing details, no ads)
EXCERPT: “The illusion that a scientist has a valid and complete explanation tends to be magnified when the data is well described by mathematical and computer simulation models,” the authors write. They note that predictive success can sometimes create the impression of deeper understanding than actually exists because “prediction does not imply causality, but gives the illusion that it does.”
This assertion may appear counterintuitive given science’s extraordinary achievements. Modern medicine, communications technology, transportation systems, and countless other advances have transformed daily life through scientific discovery.
However, the authors contend that incomplete understanding and scientific progress often coexist. “This limited understanding is nonetheless sufficient to explain how science has produced amazing progress with enormous benefits to society,” Shiffrin said.
The authors depict science as a process of gradually improving explanations, rather than as a collection of absolute truths. Researchers build models, test hypotheses, gather new evidence, revise earlier assumptions, and move incrementally toward deeper understanding.
The consequences of overestimating understanding extend beyond academic debates. According to the authors, assumptions about what scientists know can influence nearly every stage of the research process, from experimental design and theory development, to teaching and communication.
“It makes a case that the many incomplete levels of understanding affect, often unwittingly, the ways scientists design experiments, test theories, comprehend, communicate, and teach,” the authors observe.
The topic resonated widely within the scientific community. The essay attracted 32 published commentaries from researchers across multiple fields, an unusually robust response that prompted the three authors to prepare a collective reply.
The discussion reflects a longstanding interest in the strengths and limitations of human cognition. Recognizing those limitations, the authors assert, can ultimately strengthen science rather than weaken it... (MORE - missing details, no ads)