The mainstream account of scientific understanding is explanationism. According to explanationism, scientific understanding is only achieved when a subject grasps a full or partial explanation of the target phenomenon. Objectualists disagree and argue that there are instances of scientific understanding that outstrip explanatory understanding. In this paper, I advance a novel form of objectualism that I call epistemic pluralism or PLURALISM for short. On this view, the satisfaction of any scient…
Read moreThe mainstream account of scientific understanding is explanationism. According to explanationism, scientific understanding is only achieved when a subject grasps a full or partial explanation of the target phenomenon. Objectualists disagree and argue that there are instances of scientific understanding that outstrip explanatory understanding. In this paper, I advance a novel form of objectualism that I call epistemic pluralism or PLURALISM for short. On this view, the satisfaction of any scientific epistemic concern, explanatory or not, constitutes a partial ground for understanding a phenomenon scientifically. I put pressure on explanationism by arguing that, in contrast with PLURALISM, it faces a dilemma when it comes to account for the epistemic achievements of non-explanatory scientific research.
