Illusions of Misunderstanding in the Sciences.

This commentary on Shiffrin, Stigler, and Keil (2026) takes issue with some of their premises, expands on others, and complains that they have focused primarily on formal and efficient causes, ignoring the other quadrants of Aristotle's model of understanding. They-like most others-have used Box's aphorism as a platitude rather than a model for iterative improvement in models. Like Stigler's Law and Box's Law, the concept of illusion can be self-referential: illusions can be illusory. Furthermore, their long listing can unnerve young investigators. Lordy me, do you really have to understand all the paradoxes of regression to use it effectively? Do you really have to know all the ways that love can go wrong before you propose to your intended? I dove into this essay because of its brilliance and that of its authors. I came out intellectually stimulated, cleansed of some error, but shivering a bit. Perhaps in their next essay, the authors will tell us all the ways that visions-illusory or not, if the latter is even possible-can stoke the warming fires of creativity, a gift that our field needs even more than a budget of paradoxes.