The article revisits the concepts of thermal comfort and thermal sensation, emphasizing the need for a more accurate evaluation of the thermal environment. Thermal comfort is a crucial concept for assessing the thermal environment, but the current evaluation metric is thermal sensation, which is influenced by various environmental and individual factors. This complexity makes the current association between thermal sensation and thermal comfort less rigorous. The article argues that most prediction models and guidelines for assessing thermal environments rely on thermal sensation, which is used to predict other perceptions like thermal comfort and preference. Therefore, there is a pressing need to reassess how we effectively and accurately evaluate the thermal environment. Subjective measurement is a frequently used and reliable method for evaluating the thermal environment. However, the current assessment of the thermal environment predominantly uses thermal sensation, typically based on the 7-level scale recommended by ASHRAE-55. This scale lacks information about emotional attitudes such as satisfaction and comfort. The article discusses the correspondence between thermal sensation and comfort acceptability, noting that the thermally neutral state may not necessarily correspond to temperatures associated with thermal comfort or preference. Human sensations are multidimensional, and thermal sensations are just one component of the broader concept of comfort. The PMV model is a milestone in the development of thermal environment evaluation and remains one of the most widely used indices in engineering applications. However, it is fundamentally an empirical formula relying on thermal sensation voting, lacking consideration for subjective responses such as thermal comfort and satisfaction. The article also discusses the Standard Effective Temperature (SET) model, which assumes that an environment with the same heat loss, skin wettedness, and skin temperature as a standard environment will elicit the same thermal sensation. Standards such as ASHRAE-55, ISO 7730, and GB 50736 base their evaluations of the thermal environment mainly on PMV or SET calculations. The article highlights the complexity of the environment and human responses, emphasizing that thermal perception cannot be solely described through a single dimension such as thermal sensation. The complexity of the environment and human responses further complicates the ability to solely rely on thermal sensation for expressing thermal comfort levels.The article revisits the concepts of thermal comfort and thermal sensation, emphasizing the need for a more accurate evaluation of the thermal environment. Thermal comfort is a crucial concept for assessing the thermal environment, but the current evaluation metric is thermal sensation, which is influenced by various environmental and individual factors. This complexity makes the current association between thermal sensation and thermal comfort less rigorous. The article argues that most prediction models and guidelines for assessing thermal environments rely on thermal sensation, which is used to predict other perceptions like thermal comfort and preference. Therefore, there is a pressing need to reassess how we effectively and accurately evaluate the thermal environment. Subjective measurement is a frequently used and reliable method for evaluating the thermal environment. However, the current assessment of the thermal environment predominantly uses thermal sensation, typically based on the 7-level scale recommended by ASHRAE-55. This scale lacks information about emotional attitudes such as satisfaction and comfort. The article discusses the correspondence between thermal sensation and comfort acceptability, noting that the thermally neutral state may not necessarily correspond to temperatures associated with thermal comfort or preference. Human sensations are multidimensional, and thermal sensations are just one component of the broader concept of comfort. The PMV model is a milestone in the development of thermal environment evaluation and remains one of the most widely used indices in engineering applications. However, it is fundamentally an empirical formula relying on thermal sensation voting, lacking consideration for subjective responses such as thermal comfort and satisfaction. The article also discusses the Standard Effective Temperature (SET) model, which assumes that an environment with the same heat loss, skin wettedness, and skin temperature as a standard environment will elicit the same thermal sensation. Standards such as ASHRAE-55, ISO 7730, and GB 50736 base their evaluations of the thermal environment mainly on PMV or SET calculations. The article highlights the complexity of the environment and human responses, emphasizing that thermal perception cannot be solely described through a single dimension such as thermal sensation. The complexity of the environment and human responses further complicates the ability to solely rely on thermal sensation for expressing thermal comfort levels.