Abstract
There are three main approaches to scientific explanation in the philosophical literature. The unification approach claims that
science explains by fitting the particular facts and events within a general theoretical framework. The mechanistic approach
claims that science explains by identifying mechanisms. According to the manipulationist approach an explanation ought to
be such that it can be used to answer a “what-if-things-had-been-different question.” The article examines whether these three
approaches are compatible or not in the case of the social sciences, and it concludes by defending explanatory pluralism.