 Kaplan and Craver’s radical conclusion, that dynamicist “explanations” are genuine explanations only to the degree that they respect the (mechanist’s) 3M Constraint, needs more defense. The burden of proof always lies on those whose conclusions strike at popular assumptions. More than the discussion of a couple of landmark dynamicist models in neuroscience is needed (in their 2011, Kaplan and Craver also discuss the difference-of-Gaussians model of receptive field properties of mammalian visual neurons). Expectedly, dynamicists have taken up this challenge. Michael Silberstein and Anthony Chemero (2013), for example, argue that localization and decomposition strategies characterize mechanistic explanation, and that some explanations in systems neuroscience violate one of these assumptions, or both. Such violations in turn create a dilemma for mechanists. Either they must “stretch” their account of explanation, beyond decomposition and localization, to capture these recalcitrant cases, or they must accept “counterexamples” to the generality of mechanistic explanation, in both systems neuroscience and systems biology more generally.