Abstract

Recent works in the philosophy of mathematical practice and mathematical education have challenged orthodox views of mathematical explanation by developing Understanding-first accounts according to which mathematical explanation should be cashed out in terms of understanding. In this article, we explore two arguments that might have motivated this move, (i) the context-sensitivity argument and (ii) the inadequacy of knowing why argument. We show that although these arguments are derived from compelling observations, they ultimately rest on a misunderstanding of what Explanation-first accounts are committed to and an underestimation of the resources available to them. By clarifying the terms at play in the debate and distinguishing different objects of evaluation, we show that the insightful observations about practice and education made by challengers to the orthodoxy are in fact best accounted for within the traditional Explanation-first framework.