On understanding: de Regt, H. (2017). Understanding Scientific Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On evidence for evolution: Kampourakis, K. (2020). Understanding Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19: Rabadan, R. (2020). Understanding Coronavirus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On uncertainty in science: Kampourakis, K. and McCain, K. (2019). Uncertainty: How It Makes Science Advance. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On the aims of science: McCain, K. (2015). Explanation and the nature of scientific knowledge. Science & Education 24: 827–854.Google Scholar

On explanation in science: McCain, K. (2019). How do explanations lead to scientific knowledge? In McCain, K. and Kampourakis, K. (Eds.). What Is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge, 52–65; McCain, K. (2020). What is biological knowledge? In K. Kampourakis and T. Uller (Eds.). Philosophy of Science for Biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 36–54.Google Scholar

On how-possibly explanations: Brainard, L. (2020). How to explain how-possibly. Philosophers’ Imprint 20: 1–23.Google Scholar

On the close connection between scientific and everyday thinking: Einstein, A. (1936). Physics and reality. Journal of the Franklin Institute 221: 349–382; Gauch Jr., H. G. (2012). Scientific Method in Brief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

On the role of seeking and giving explanations in learning: Gopnik, A., Walker, C. M., Lombrozo, T., Williams, J. J., and Rafferty, A. N. (2017). Explaining constrains causal learning in childhood. Child Development 88: 229–246; Liquin, E. G. and Lombrozo, T. (2020). Explanation-seeking curiosity in childhood. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 35: 14–20.Google Scholar

On explanations as “because” answers to particular questions: Kampourakis, K. and Niebert, K. (2018). Explanation in biology education. In Kampourakis, K. and Reiss, M. (Eds.). Teaching Biology in Schools: Global Research, Issues and Trends. New York: Routledge, 236–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On the ubiquity of generating and evaluating explanations: Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Science 10: 464–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

On explanation as a primitive concept: Poston, T. (2014). Reason and Explanation: A Defense of Explanatory Coherentism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On equilibrium explanations as non-causal: Sober, E. (1983). Equilibrium explanation. Philosophical Studies 43: 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On the challenges for I-S explanations: Sober, E. (2020). A theory of contrastive causal explanation and its implications concerning the explanatoriness of deterministic and probabilistic hypotheses. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10: 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On what-if-things-had-been-different questions: Woodward, J. (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On the covering law model and other important accounts of scientific explanation: Woodward, J. (2021). Scientific Explanation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/scientific-explanation.Google Scholar

On the role of speculation in science: Achinstein, P. (2019). Speculation: Within and About Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On the variety of kinds of explanations in biology: Braillard, P.-A. and Malaterre, C. (Eds). (2015). Explanation in Biology: An Enquiry into the Diversity of Explanatory Patterns in the Life Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer; Brigandt, I. (2013). Explanation in biology: Reduction, pluralism, and explanatory aims. Science & Education 22: 69–91.Google Scholar

On historical and experimental explanations: Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science 69: 447–451; Cleland, C. E. (2011). Prediction and explanation in historical natural science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62: 551–582; Reydon, T.A.C. (forthcoming). The proper role of history in evolutionary explanations. Nous. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12402.Google Scholar

On skepticism concerning whether historical explanations are scientific: Gee, H. (2000). In Search of Deep Time. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

On the inescapability of uncertainty in science: Kampourakis, K. and McCain, K. (2019). Uncertainty: How It Makes Science Advance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On paradigm shifts and the nature of change in science: Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

On grounds for thinking that we have good reasons to reject philosophical skepticism without experiments: McCain, K. (2014). Evidentialism and Epistemic Justification. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

On the general nature of knowledge: McCain, K. (2016). The Nature of Scientific Knowledge: An Explanatory Approach. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On evolution and misguided criticisms of it: McCain, K. and Weslake, B. (2013). Evolutionary theory and the epistemology of science. In Kampourakis, K. (Ed.). The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators. Cham: Springer, 101–119.Google Scholar

On biology as historical science: Sober, E. (2000). Philosophy of Biology, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

On the lack of a single scientific method: Strevens, M. (2020). The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar

On actual-sequence and robust-process explanations: Sterelny, K. (1995). Basic minds. Philosophical Perspectives 9: 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On likelihood of a cancer diagnosis in one’s lifetime: Cancer Treatment Centers of America (n.d.) Women and cancer. Available at: www.cancercenter.com/women-and-cancer#:~:text=The%20National%20Cancer%20Institute%20estimates,disease%20more%20often%20than%20men (accessed May 10, 2021).Google Scholar

On the close relationship between scientific explanation and prediction: de Regt, H. (2017). Understanding Scientific Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Douglas, H. E. (2009). Reintroducing prediction to explanation. Philosophy of Science 76: 444–463.Google Scholar

On the challenges of trying to understand the world: Kampourakis, K. and McCain, K. (2019). Uncertainty: How It Makes Science Advance. New York: Oxford University Press; Potochnik, A. (2017). Idealization and the Aims of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

On simplicity and its role in science: Achinstein, P. (2019). Speculation: Within and About Science. New York: Oxford University Press; Martens, R. (2009). Harmony and simplicity: Aesthetic virtues and the rise of testability. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 40: 258–266.Google Scholar

On the possibility that infants use explanatory reasoning: Baillargeon, R., Li, J., Gertner, Y., and Wu, D. (2011). How do infants reason about physical events. In Goswami, U. (Ed.). The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development Vol. 2. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 11–48.Google Scholar

On the role of exemplars in evaluating explanatory quality: Bird, A. (2022). Knowing Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On the explanatory quality of evolutionary theory: Kampourakis, K. (2020). Understanding Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; McCain, K. and Weslake, B. (2013). Evolutionary theory and the epistemology of science. In K. Kampourakis (Ed.). The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators. Cham: Springer, 101–119.Google Scholar

On the ubiquity of generating and evaluating explanations: Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Science 10: 464–470; Lombrozo, T. (2016). Explanatory preferences shape learning and inference. Trends in Cognitive Science 20: 748–759.Google Scholar

On the role of beauty in science and its relation to simplicity: Glynn, I. (2010). Elegance in Science: The Beauty of Simplicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; McAllister, J. W. (1996). Beauty and Revolution in Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; Weinberg, S. (1994). Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

On the theoretical virtues: Schindler, S. (2018). Theoretical Virtues in Science: Uncovering Reality through Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

On the rules of scientific debate: Strevens, M. (2020). The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar

On the role of theoretical virtues in the success of science: Trout, J. D. (2016). Wondrous Truths: The Improbable Triumph of Modern Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On young children’s preference for simpler theories: Walker, C. M., Williams, J. J., Lombrozo, T., Rafferty, A. N., and Gopnik, A. (2017). Explaining constrains causal learning in childhood. Child Development 88: 229–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

On scientific understanding: de Regt, H. (2017). Understanding Scientific Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Elgin, C. Z. (2017). True Enough. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Kampourakis, K. and McCain, K. (2019). Uncertainty: How It Makes Science Advance. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On the prevalence of cognitive biases: Gilovich, T. (1991). How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

On the possibility that studies purporting to show cognitive errors are mistaken: Hertwig, R. and Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The “conjunction fallacy” revisited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12: 275–305; Mousavi, S. and Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Revisiting the “error” in studies of cognitive errors. In D. A. Hofmann and M. Frese (Eds.). Error in Organizations. New York: Taylor & Francis, 97–112.Google Scholar

On what makes an explanation the best: Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

On the inherent uncertainty of science: Rovelli, C. (2014). Science is not about certainty. In Brockman, J. (Ed.). The Universe: Leading Scientists Explore the Origin, Mysteries, and Future of the Cosmos. New York: Harper Perennial, 214–228; Kampourakis, K. and McCain, K. (2019). Uncertainty: How It Makes Science Advance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On reasons to be skeptical of felt understanding: Trout, J. D. (2016). Wondrous Truths: The Improbable Triumph of Modern Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On understanding generated from idealizations: de Regt, H. (2017). Understanding Scientific Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Elgin, C. Z. (2017). True Enough. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

On the nature of scientific models: Giere, R. N. (2010). Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

On uncertainty resulting from idealizations: Kampourakis, K. and McCain, K. (2019). Uncertainty: How It Makes Science Advance. New York: Oxford University Press; Rovelli, C. (2014). Science is not about certainty. In J. Brockman (Ed.), The Universe: Leading Scientists Explore the Origin, Mysteries, and Future of the Cosmos. New York: Harper Perennial, 214–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On idealizations in biology: Sober, E. (2000). Philosophy of Biology, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

On the nature of idealizations: Strevens, M. (2008). Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

On the inescapability of idealizing models in science: Potochnik, A. (2017). Idealization and the Aims of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; Trout, J. D. (2016). Wondrous Truths: The Improbable Triumph of Modern Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On possible explanations for the origin of life on Earth: Bernhardt, H. S. (2012). The RNA world hypothesis: The worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all of the others). Biology Direct 7: 23.Google Scholar

On the idea that knowledge only comes by inference to the only explanation: Bird, A. (2022). Knowing Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On the requirement that inferred explanations must not only be the best, but also “good enough”: Dellsén, F. (2021). Explanatory consolidation: From “best” to “good enough”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research; Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; McCain, K. and Poston, T. (2019). Dispelling the disjunction objection to explanatory inference. Philosophers’ Imprint 19: 1–8.Google Scholar

On successes of IBE in science: Douven, I. (2017). Abduction. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/abduction; Trout, J. D. (2016). Wondrous Truths: The Improbable Triumph of Modern Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On the relation of scientific and everyday thinking: Einstein, A. (1936). Physics and reality. Journal of the Franklin Institute 221: 349–382.Google Scholar

On the explanatory power of the double-helix structure of DNA: Kampourakis, K. (2017). Making Sense of Genes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

On how scientific explanations lead to scientific knowledge: Kampourakis, K. and McCain, K. (2019). Uncertainty: How It Makes Science Advance. New York: Oxford University Press; McCain, K. (2019). How do explanations lead to scientific knowledge? In K. McCain and K. Kampourakis (Eds.). What Is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge, 52–65; McCain, K. (2020). What is biological knowledge? In K. Kampourakis and T. Uller (Eds.). Philosophy of Science for Biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 36–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On how the changes in our scientific practices make our best hypotheses likely to be true: Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

On the Best of a Bad Lot and unconceived rival hypotheses objections to IBE: van Fraassen, B. (1989). Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar