Scholarlink

<p>Shiffrin et al. identify a wide-ranging set of illusions of understanding in the sciences. I argue that their analysis can be sharpened by distinguishing three partially overlapping sources of unwarranted confidence: the open-ended nature of explanation, the cognitive limitations of the human mind, and features of contemporary scientific practice. The first two sources are structural features of inquiry itself and have historically been mitigated—though never eliminated—by corrective mechanisms embedded in the scientific method, such as systematic error detection and active exploration of explanations. The third source—societal and institutional conditions—differs in kind: it can either strengthen or weaken these corrective mechanisms, thereby either reducing or amplifying illusions of understanding. Clarifying this distinction helps specify both the structural resilience and the contingent vulnerability of scientific inquiry.</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

Active Exploration of Explanations as a Guard Against Overconfidence in Understanding

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月16日

查看全文
  • Igor Bascandziev

摘要

Shiffrin et al. identify a wide-ranging set of illusions of understanding in the sciences. I argue that their analysis can be sharpened by distinguishing three partially overlapping sources of unwarranted confidence: the open-ended nature of explanation, the cognitive limitations of the human mind, and features of contemporary scientific practice. The first two sources are structural features of inquiry itself and have historically been mitigated—though never eliminated—by corrective mechanisms embedded in the scientific method, such as systematic error detection and active exploration of explanations. The third source—societal and institutional conditions—differs in kind: it can either strengthen or weaken these corrective mechanisms, thereby either reducing or amplifying illusions of understanding. Clarifying this distinction helps specify both the structural resilience and the contingent vulnerability of scientific inquiry.