I agree! This quite deliberately limits an “understanding” in favor of “knowledge,” or one might say, keeps “insights” out in favor of “facts.” It creates that we know enough all the time to tell what is true and not. Well, there are problems, of certain simplistic form where there are definite solutions, but not the interesting ones, the ones which we haven’t even encountered yet. For those, we need an understanding of the noise more than we do of the “means.” I’m continually flabbergasted by people who are dismissive of “errors” and “noise” as “waste.” But they are not only common, but are actually bred by the way too many people in society approach “data,” treating it as if the source of “final answers,” not sources of insights that can be turned into an understanding.