Understanding and Explanation

Thus far, we've been considering the idea that understanding is a species of explanatory knowledge. Last class, we examined the idea that understanding might not be knowledge; in this class, we'll examine whether understanding always has to be explanatory in nature. My view is that explanatory knowledge is the ideal mode of understanding. de Regt's essay challenges the sufficiency of this view, arguing that an extra dimension of skill/insight must be added to explanatory knowledge in order to achieve understanding. Lipton's essay challenges the necessity of explanations for understanding. I've offered arguments as to why I think that both are mistaken. What do you think?