Why is that? Well, your brain has native hardware that understands cause-effects models on its own. You just need reality to shove the relationship in your face hard enough, and your brain will go “ok, seems legit. let’s add it to our world-model”.
What about the opposite? Coincidences that happens with enough regularity that a superstition or inaccurate causal model forms. At a train station, I once saw a three year old swiping their palm on the glass of an advertisement which had a paper loop that rotated on a timer. The child thought there was a causal connection between the palm gesture they probably learned on a tablet like an iPad, and the movement of the paper. Because they kept swiping, and the advertisement rotated pretty quickly, at least for a while they thought they were controlling it. They weren’t. That is not understanding but I don’t see how it is different from your door example. The sensory data of reality matches expectations or patterns.
Those who knew Miasma Theory would have been said to ‘understand’ the causes of disease. From a modern perspective, they didn’t.
What is interesting is we can understand things we know to be false. We can understand a fantasy story. If Carl is jokingly raising a middle finger to Andy who is standing next to Blane, Blane may mistakenly think Carl is being rude to him. But Andy may “understand” how Blane made that mistake. We can understand how Luke Skywalker blasting swaprats gave him the confidence to bring down the Death Star. There is no Luke Skyalker or Death Star. They are not “true” in the sense they are not “real”. But the story can be understood.
What about the opposite? Coincidences that happens with enough regularity that a superstition or inaccurate causal model forms. At a train station, I once saw a three year old swiping their palm on the glass of an advertisement which had a paper loop that rotated on a timer. The child thought there was a causal connection between the palm gesture they probably learned on a tablet like an iPad, and the movement of the paper. Because they kept swiping, and the advertisement rotated pretty quickly, at least for a while they thought they were controlling it. They weren’t. That is not understanding but I don’t see how it is different from your door example. The sensory data of reality matches expectations or patterns.
Those who knew Miasma Theory would have been said to ‘understand’ the causes of disease. From a modern perspective, they didn’t.
What is interesting is we can understand things we know to be false. We can understand a fantasy story. If Carl is jokingly raising a middle finger to Andy who is standing next to Blane, Blane may mistakenly think Carl is being rude to him. But Andy may “understand” how Blane made that mistake. We can understand how Luke Skywalker blasting swaprats gave him the confidence to bring down the Death Star. There is no Luke Skyalker or Death Star. They are not “true” in the sense they are not “real”. But the story can be understood.