A professional guide to explanation. commentary on “A methodological problem of choice for 4E research”

Sanches de Oliveira, Guilherme

Publication:
A professional guide to explanation. commentary on “A methodological problem of choice for 4E research”

dc.contributor.author	Sanches de Oliveira, Guilherme
dc.contributor.department	Filosofía
dc.date.accessioned	2026-02-23T13:04:15Z
dc.date.available	2026-02-23T13:04:15Z
dc.date.copyright	© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
dc.date.issued	2023
dc.description.abstract	On the face of it, the perspective that Casper puts forward in his paper (Chap. 2) and the one I offer in mine (Chap. 4)are completely at odds with each other. He sees the current diversity of explanations, theories and methods in embodied cognitive science as problematic and calling for some kind of integration, whereas I defend an extreme pluralist stance and don’t see the diversity as a problem. Not only that, but while he argues for coordination between the disparate approaches, I propose that expecting such coordination is in many cases unrealistic and moreover that, even when it’s possible, it might be counterproductive. The straightforward thing to do now would be for me to double down and use this space to try to show why I’m right and Casper is wrong. But I don’t think he’s wrong. He and I do disagree, but I don’t think it’s that sort of disagreement where only one side can be right and the other must be wrong. In particular, I don’t think that focusing on the different conclusions he and I draw in our respective chapters is a fruitful way to understand the nature of our disagreement. My goal in this commentary will be to explain why. I don’t know if Casper will agree with my assessment or not, but I won’t be surprised if he doesn’t—in fact, as I will suggest, this would make perfect sense given what I propose in my chapter. Still, my hope is that, by clarifying how (from my perspective) our different views relate to each other, I can help some readers better appreciate both his proposal and mine.
dc.format	application/pdf
dc.format.extent	6
dc.identifier.citation	Sanches de Oliveira, G. (2023). A Professional Guide to Explanation. Commentary on “A Methodological Problem of Choice for 4E Research”. In: Casper, MO., Artese, G.F. (eds) Situated Cognition Research. Studies in Brain and Mind, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39744-8_3
dc.identifier.doi	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39744-8_3
dc.identifier.eisbn	978-3-031-39744-8
dc.identifier.isbn	978-3-031-39743-1
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10201/210942
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Springer
dc.relation	Sin financiación externa a la Universidad
dc.relation.ispartof	Situated cognition research: methodological foundations. Ed.: Springer, pp. 45-50
dc.relation.publisherversion	https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-39744-8_3
dc.rights.accessRights	info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subject	Explanatory diversity
dc.subject	Embodied cognition
dc.subject	Reflexivity
dc.subject	Pluralism
dc.subject	Explanatory styles
dc.subject.ods	No relacionado con ningún objetivo de desarrollo sostenible
dc.title	A professional guide to explanation. commentary on “A methodological problem of choice for 4E research”
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/bookPart
dc.type.version	info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dspace.entity.type	Publication	es
relation.isAuthorOfPublication	60f0aa5a-7048-4323-a66d-a29676e28baa
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery	60f0aa5a-7048-4323-a66d-a29676e28baa