 Against understanding-first approaches, there are “debunking” approaches according to which understanding is of little if any help to accounts of explanation. (More positively, these might simply be considered “explanation-first” approaches.) Thus Khalifa argues that attempts to revive understanding as a central notion in the philosophy of science have amounted to little more than a repackaging of existing models of explanation (Khalifa 2012, 2017b: ch. 3), and that strictly speaking all one needs for a plausible account of understanding is a plausible account of what counts as a good or correct explanation, combined with a plausible account of knowledge. Understanding therefore amounts to knowing a correct explanation. But then nothing new or special is needed to theorize about understanding; our accounts of explanation and our theories of knowledge do all the important theoretical work (see especially Khalifa 2017b; cf. Kelp 2015).