This chapter examines the criteria exposed by Stephen Jay Gould’s original paper on just-so stories to sustain such a charge. I show that Gould’s concerns were neither directed to narrative explanations nor were they ineluctably linked to their narrative quality. Then I analyse how advocates of narrative science have met the challenge. I identify two basic defensive approaches: the vindication of explanatory narratives in cases where the historical, contingent and causally complex nature of the phenomena demand a narrative approach and an unveiling strategy showing how there’s a narrative behind each law-like generalization or nomological explanatory formula. The chapter’s concentration on the argumentative moves of the discussants helps clarify their positions. Moreover, the argumentative quality of their object of study (scientific reason-giving practices) is also emphasized. I claim that the dialectical requirement of openness to collective survey and discussion is what may prevent just-so charges for any kind of explanatory model.

To give a Darwinian explanation of the traits of a species, it is not enough to show that the traits are appropriate for the environments inhabited. One must also show that the traits in question are more appropriate than the (presumed) ancestral traits from which they are derived. But one must go further still. Even if there is no question that the derived traits are more appropriate, one must still specify the sequence of modifications leading from the ancestral to the derived traits, each step of which is fitness-enhancing. How better – indeed, how else – than by a narrative? I illustrate these points through the evolution of flatfish eyes. This is part of an ongoing project concerning what narratives are good for, what narratives do better than non-narrative arguments: in short, why we need narratives.