As a responsive article to Miranda Rocksen’s paper “The many roles of ‘explanation’ in science education: a case study”, this paper aims to emphasize the importance of the two central themes of her paper: dialogic approaches in science education and the role of explanations in science classrooms. I start discussing the concepts of dialogue and dialogism in science classrooms contexts. Dialogism is discussed as the basic tenet from which Rocksen developed her research design and methods. In turn, dialogues in science classrooms may be considered as a particular type of discourse that allows the students’ culture, mostly based on everyday knowledge, and the science school culture, related to scientific knowledge and language to be interwoven. I argue that in school, science teachers are always committed to the resolution of differences according to a scientific position for the knowledge to be constructed. Thus, the institution of schooling constrains the ways in which dialogue can be conducted in the classrooms, as the scientific perspective will be always, beforehand, the reference for the conclusions to be reached. The second theme developed here, in dialogue with Rocksen, is about explanations in science classrooms. Based on Jean Paul Bronckart (Atividade de linguagem, textos e discursos: por um interacionismo socio-discursivo, Educ, Sao Paulo, 1999), the differences and relationship between explanation and argumentation as communicative acts are re-discussed as well its practical consequences to science teaching. Finally, some epistemological questions are raised about the status of scientific explanations in relation to non-scientific ones.