Abstract

This talk has two main aims. First, I will argue against the currently popular idea that truth, or accurate representation, is unnecessary for explanation (or understanding), an idea primarily motivated by the prevalence of idealized models in science. I suggest that a proper understanding of the inferential patterns associated with model-based reasoning requires appreciating contextual aspects of such reasoning, and in doing so, paying appropriate attention to the worldly claims extracted from an idealized model. Second, I will explore explanations associated with ‘universality’ considerations. Such explanations are taken as exemplars of inaccurate, yet explanatory models. But the structure and nature of these explanations remain in need of explication. I will take some initial steps in this regard.