Recently, several authors have argued that scientific understanding should be a new topic of philosophical research. In this article, I argue that the three most developed accounts of understanding—Grimm's, de Regt's, and de Regt and Dieks's—can be replaced by earlier ideas about scientific explanation without loss. Indeed, in some cases, such replacements have clear benefits.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 131 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.