Hempel seems to hold the following three views: (H1) Understanding is pragmatic/relativistic: Whether one understands why X happened in terms of Explanation E depends on one's beliefs and cognitive abilities; (H2) Whether a scientific explanation is good, just like whether a mathematical proof is good, is a nonpragmatic and objective issue independent of the beliefs or cognitive abilities of individuals; (H3) The goal of scientific explanation is understanding: A good scientific explanation is the one that provides understanding. Apparently, H1, H2, and H3 cannot be all true. Some philosophers think that Hempel is inconsistent, while some others claim that Hempel does not actually hold H3. I argue that Hempel does hold H3 and that he can consistently hold all of H1, H2, and H3 if he endorses what I call the “understanding argument.” I also show how attributing the understanding argument to Hempel can make more sense of his D-N model and his philosophical analysis of the pragmatic aspects of scientific explanation.

Hempel 似乎持有以下三种观点： (H1) 理解是务实的/相对论的：根据解释 E 是否理解 X 为什么会发生取决于一个人的信念和认知能力；(H2) 科学解释好不好，就像数学证明好不好一样，是一个独立于个人信仰或认知能力的非实用客观问题；(H3) 科学解释的目标是理解：一个好的科学解释是提供理解的。显然，H1、H2 和 H3 不可能都是真的。一些哲学家认为 Hempel 是不一致的，而另一些哲学家则声称 Hempel 实际上并不持有 H3。我认为 Hempel 确实持有 H3，并且如果他支持我所说的“理解论证”，他可以始终持有所有 H1、H2 和 H3。理解 Hempel 的论点可以更理解他的 DN 模型和他对科学解释的实用方面的哲学分析。