@article {152661,
	title = {Unification and explanation - {A} comment on {H}alonen and {H}intikka, and {S}churz.},
	journal = {Synthese},
	volume = {131},
	number = {1},
	year = {2002},
	pages = {145{\textendash}154},
	abstract = {<p>In this article we criticize two recent articles that examine the relation between explanation and unification. Halonen and Hintikka (1999), on the one hand, claim that no unification is explanation. Schurz (1999), on the other hand, claims that all explanation is unification. We give counterexamples to both claims. We propose a pluralistic approach to the problem: explanation sometimes consists in unification, but in other cases different kinds of explanation (e.g., causal explanation) are required; and none of these kinds is more fundamental.</p>},
	issn = {0039-7857},
	doi = {10.1023/A:1015005529380},
	author = {Weber, Erik and Van Dyck, Maarten}
}
@article {109727,
	title = {Unification: what is it, how do we reach and why do we want it?},
	journal = {Synthese},
	volume = {118},
	number = {3},
	year = {1999},
	pages = {479{\textendash}499},
	abstract = {<p>This article has three aims. The first is to give a partial explication of the concept of unification. My explication will be partial because I confine myself to unification of particular events, because I do not consider events of a quantitative nature, and discuss only deductive cases. The second aim is to analyze how unification can be reached. My third aim is to show that unification is an intellectual benefit. Instead of being an intellectual benefit unification could be an intellectual harm, i.e., a state of mind we should try to avoid by all means. By calling unification an intellectual benefit, we claim that this form of understanding has an intrinsic value for us. I argue that unification really has this alleged intrinsic value.</p>},
	issn = {0039-7857},
	doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005134205471},
	author = {Weber, Erik}
}
