Scholarlink

<p>Shiffrin, Stigler, and Keil argue that scientists often overestimate the depth of their understanding, even in simple statistical contexts. While their analysis of regression and related paradoxes shows compellingly that predictive success need not imply explanatory mastery, the present commentary questions if partial understanding should necessarily be epistemically problematic. I argue that incomplete explanation is a structural feature of scientific progress rather than necessarily an illusion. The challenge is to acknowledge the limits of models without undermining science’s epistemic status. In this vein, scientific education should emphasize nuanced explanation of the world while maintaining clear standards distinguishing well-grounded explanations from unfounded alternatives.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Understandable Lack of Understanding

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月16日

查看全文
  • Angelos-Miltiadis Krypotos

摘要

Shiffrin, Stigler, and Keil argue that scientists often overestimate the depth of their understanding, even in simple statistical contexts. While their analysis of regression and related paradoxes shows compellingly that predictive success need not imply explanatory mastery, the present commentary questions if partial understanding should necessarily be epistemically problematic. I argue that incomplete explanation is a structural feature of scientific progress rather than necessarily an illusion. The challenge is to acknowledge the limits of models without undermining science’s epistemic status. In this vein, scientific education should emphasize nuanced explanation of the world while maintaining clear standards distinguishing well-grounded explanations from unfounded alternatives.