Scientific Misunderstanding: Notes for the Bedeviled

Abstract In this paper, we critically examine the essay by Shiffrin, Stigler, and Keil (2026) on scientific understanding. We argue that, despite its uncontroversial moral message, the paper largely fails to articulate a compelling thesis. The central notion of an “illusion of understanding” is left insufficiently specified and supported by ill-suited examples. The analysis further rests on a narrow conception of explanation that largely equates understanding with causal claims. When discussing linear regression and related examples (e.g., Simpson’s Paradox), the essay also fails to clarify what is actually at stake. Its treatment of regression to the mean, in particular, is misconceived. We conclude by suggesting that discussions of scientific understanding would benefit from a model-hierarchical perspective.