ArticleComputational brain & behavior2026
Scientific Misunderstanding: Notes for the Bedeviled.
Article in Computational brain & behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-026-00337-0.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.