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 University of Chicago, and Frank Keil of Yale University.

The consequences of overestimating understanding extend beyond academic debates. According to the authors, assumptions about what scientists know can influence nearly every stage of the research process, from experimental design and theory development to teaching and communication.

“It makes a case that the many incomplete levels of understanding affect, often unwittingly, the ways scientists design experiments, test theories, comprehend, communicate and teach,” the authors observe.

The topic resonated widely within the scientific community. The essay attracted 32 published commentaries from researchers across multiple fields, an unusually robust response that prompted the three authors to prepare a collective reply.

The discussion reflects a longstanding interest in the strengths and limitations of human cognition. Recognizing those limitations, the authors assert, can ultimately strengthen science rather than weaken it.

Acknowledging gaps in understanding encourages greater caution when drawing conclusions, greater humility when communicating results and greater openness to alternative explanations. It also reflects the reality that scientific knowledge is continually evolving.

That is, science advances through a continual process of refining, testing and deepening humanity’s understanding of how the world works. And, paradoxically, recognizing how much remains unknown may be one of the clearest signs of scientific progress.

Link to open access paper

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42113-026-00271-1