Like many forms of Pavlovian conditioning, eyelid conditioning displays robust extinction. We used a computer simulation of the cerebellum as a tool to consider the widely accepted view that extinction involves new, inhibitory learning rather than unlearning of acquisition. Previously, this simulation suggested basic mechanistic features of extinction and savings in eyelid conditioning, with predictions born out by experiments. We review previous work showing that the simulation reproduces behavioral phenomena and lesion effects generally taken as evidence that extinction does not reverse acquisition, even though its plasticity is bidirectional with no site dedicated to inhibitory learning per se. In contrast, we show that even though the sites of plasticity are, in general, affected in opposite directions by acquisition and extinction training, most synapses do not return to their naive state after acquisition followed by extinction. These results suggest caution in interpreting a range of observations as necessarily supporting extinction as unlearning or extinction as new inhibitory learning. We argue that the question "is extinction reversal of acquisition or new inhibitory learning?" is therefore not well posed because the answer may depend on factors such as the brain system in question or the level of analysis considered.