Scientific Misunderstanding: Notes for the Bedeviled

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 fails to articulate a coherent thesis. In particular, it turns on a central notion of an "illusion of understanding" that is not only insufficiently specified but supported by ill-suited examples. Moreover, the analysis rests on a narrow conception of explanation that all but equates understanding with the issuance of causal claims. When invoking the linear regression model and a number of purportedly perplexing or counterintuitive results (e.g., Simpson's Paradox), the essay also fails to clarify what is actually at stake. In the specific case of 'regression to the mean', we find its treatment to be misconceived. We conclude by arguing that analyses of scientific understanding would benefit from a hierarchical framework of the kind proposed by Suppes (1966).