Scientific Understanding Across Disciplines: In Varietate Concordia?

Abstract Understanding is a generally acknowledged aim of science, but the way in which understanding is pursued and criteria for when it is achieved differ widely across scientific disciplines. This paper offers a comparative analysis of this disciplinary variation, aimed at revealing differences as well as commonalities in methods and criteria for achieving understanding. Starting-point is the contextual theory of scientific understanding (De Regt 2017), which was developed to accommodate contextual variation in criteria for understanding. While De Regt’s work focused on historical variation and used mainly case studies from the history of physics, the current paper applies the contextual theory to disciplinary variation. We present brief descriptive accounts of how understanding figures in nine scientific disciplines: mathematics, theoretical physics, astrophysics, chemistry, geoscience, biology, neuroscience, psychiatry, and the engineering sciences. Subsequently, we compare and evaluate these accounts in light of the contextual theory of scientific understanding.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal for General Philosophy of Science
Published
2026-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-026-09781-9
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Philosophy and History of Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.77

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Scientific Understanding Across Disciplines: In Varietate Concordia?

Milo D. Cornelissen, Nina S. de Boer, Sebastian De Haro, Ludo L. J. Schoenmakers et al.
1 citations
Journal for General Philosophy of Science
Philosophy and History of Science
6.77
article

Scientific Understanding Across Disciplines: In Varietate Concordia?

Milo D. Cornelissen, Nina S. de Boer, Sebastian De Haro, Ludo L. J. Schoenmakers, Maarten G. Kleinhans, Daniel Kostić, Henk W. de Regt, Kristian González Barman, Paul Disberg, Vincent Coumans
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Understanding is a generally acknowledged aim of science, but the way in which understanding is pursued and criteria for when it is achieved differ widely across scientific disciplines. This paper offers a comparative analysis of this disciplinary variation, aimed at revealing differences as well as commonalities in methods and criteria for achieving understanding. Starting-point is the contextual theory of scientific understanding (De Regt 2017), which was developed to accommodate contextual variation in criteria for understanding. While De Regt’s work focused on historical variation and used mainly case studies from the history of physics, the current paper applies the contextual theory to disciplinary variation. We present brief descriptive accounts of how understanding figures in nine scientific disciplines: mathematics, theoretical physics, astrophysics, chemistry, geoscience, biology, neuroscience, psychiatry, and the engineering sciences. Subsequently, we compare and evaluate these accounts in light of the contextual theory of scientific understanding.

Journal for General Philosophy of Science
HAN University of Applied Sciences (NL), Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research (AT), Utrecht University (NL), Ghent University (BE), Institute of Philosophy and Sociology (PL), ARC Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery (AU), Institute of Physics (NL), Technische Universität Berlin (DE), Monash University (AU), University of Amsterdam (NL), Polish Academy of Sciences (PL)
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Philosophy and History of Science
6.77
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon