New study explores how incomplete understanding fuels scientific progress
Scientists spend their careers trying to understand how the world works. Yet even in their own specialties, complete understanding may remain elusive. That idea lies at the center of a new article by Richard Shiffrin, distinguished and Luther Dana Waterman professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences in the College of Arts and Sciences at Indiana University Bloomington, Stephen Stigler of the…
A new study explores how the incomplete understanding of scientific concepts fuels progress, according to researchers at Indiana University Bloomington, the University of Chicago, and Yale University. Published in Computational Brain & Behavior, the article, "Illusions of Understanding in the Sciences," examines the notion that scientists often believe they comprehend more than they truly do.
This gap between confidence and understanding is a fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry in the face of near-limitless complexity.
The authors posit that even within specialized fields, complete understanding may remain elusive. For instance, linear regression, a statistical technique used to estimate the relationship between variables, is extensively employed by researchers across disciplines. However, the authors argue that many experienced users of the method do not fully grasp all its assumptions, limitations, and causal implications.
Understanding, according to the article, exists on a continuum rather than as an all-or-nothing achievement. Scientists may have enough knowledge to make accurate predictions, develop useful theories, design successful experiments, or create beneficial technologies without fully understanding every underlying mechanism. This distinction becomes particularly relevant when mathematical models and computer simulations are involved, as the illusion of complete understanding tends to increase when data fits well within these models.
While modern society has experienced tremendous benefits from scientific advancements, the researchers stress that incomplete understanding coexists with progress. They depict science as a gradual process of improving explanations, rather than a collection of absolute truths. Researchers iteratively build models, test hypotheses, gather new evidence, revise assumptions, and work incrementally toward deeper understanding.
Overestimating understanding can have significant consequences beyond academic debates, influencing experimental design, theory development, teaching, and communication. Recognizing the limitations of human cognition, the authors argue, can ultimately strengthen science by promoting caution, humility, and openness to alternative explanations. This understanding reflects the evolving nature of scientific knowledge, which continually advances through refinement, testing, and deepening of our comprehension of the world.
Written by urgent.news from Phys.org's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
