Non-Tethered Understanding and Scientific Pluralism

Abstract I examine situations in which we say that different subjects have ‘different’, ‘competing’, or ‘conflicting understandings’ of a phenomenon. In order to make sense such situations, should turn our attention an often neglected ambiguity the word ‘understanding’. Whereas notion understanding is typically discussed philosophy is, use Elgin’s terms, tethered facts, there another not same way. This latter relevant because, typically, talk two having phenomenon does entail any commitment proposition these understand word. paper aims, first, analyze non-tethered understanding, second, clarify its relationship notion, third, explore what exactly goes on when clash and, fourth, discuss significance epistemic practices. particular, argue for version scientific pluralism according are important because they help communities achieve their fundamental goals—most importantly, goal world sense.