Abstract: The traditional philosophy of science believes that descriptive research methods cannot lead to normativity. Given that the theory of scientific understanding adopts descriptive research methods， it is questioned whether or not to provide normativity for scientific understanding. The theory of scientific understanding is divided into two paths. The first path provides normativity for scientific understanding on the basis of knowledge and scientific explanation， but this normativity is based on logical inevitability and transcendental inevitability. Thus， the first path has to face the problem of how to integrate this normativity into the pragmatics of scientific understanding. The second path is collectively called the contextual theory. Faye's “organization view” rejects all norms， but it implies coherence which reflects the need for normativity. Regt's contextual theory abandons the normativity recognized by the traditional philosophy of science and pursues the normativity of contexts. Regt's contextual theory provides evaluative normativity for scientific understanding， which can accommodate the pragmatism of scientific understanding. It is then concluded that there is normativity in scientific understanding.

Key words: scientific understanding; normativity; contextual theory; pragmatism