<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-06-08T08:50:55Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/133025" metadataPrefix="qdc">https://docta.ucm.es/rest/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/133025</identifier><datestamp>2026-02-25T00:52:33Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_20.500.14352_14</setSpec><setSpec>col_20.500.14352_15</setSpec></header><metadata><qdc:qualifieddc xmlns:qdc="http://dspace.org/qualifieddc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xsi:schemaLocation="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/qdc/2006/01/06/dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/terms/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/qdc/2006/01/06/dcterms.xsd http://dspace.org/qualifieddc/ http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/xmlschema/qualifieddc.xsd">
   <dc:title>Scientific understanding: no veritism without realism, no realism without veritism</dc:title>
   <dc:creator>Martín Villuendas, Mariano</dc:creator>
   <dcterms:abstract>Scientific understanding constitutes one of the most firmly settled topics in the philosophy of general science. The most accepted approach within the debate has been the so-called “factivism of understanding.” Here, I show analytically how the latter is articulated through the acceptance of two interrelated theses: an epistemological—veritism—and an ontological one—realism. Recently, a group of authors challenged this line of thought by dissociating ontological and epistemological commitments. I examine these proposals, elucidating to what extent they fail in their attempt to formulate a consistent account of scientific understanding. I argue that if one wants to articulate an account committed to a truth-centered epistemology, one should adopt a realist stance; if one wants to formulate a realist account of scientific understanding, one should subscribe to a truth-centered epistemology.</dcterms:abstract>
   <dcterms:dateAccepted>2026-02-24T11:24:14Z</dcterms:dateAccepted>
   <dcterms:available>2026-02-24T11:24:14Z</dcterms:available>
   <dcterms:created>2026-02-24T11:24:14Z</dcterms:created>
   <dcterms:issued>2025</dcterms:issued>
   <dc:type>journal article</dc:type>
   <dc:identifier>https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/133025</dc:identifier>
   <dc:identifier>0353-5150</dc:identifier>
   <dc:identifier>1874-6349</dc:identifier>
   <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
   <dc:relation>Martín-Villuendas, M. Scientific Understanding: No Veritism Without Realism, No Realism Without Veritism. Acta Anal (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-025-00643-5</dc:relation>
   <dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</dc:rights>
   <dc:rights>open access</dc:rights>
   <dc:rights>Attribution 4.0 International</dc:rights>
   <dc:publisher>Springer Nature</dc:publisher>
</qdc:qualifieddc></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>