Realism Versus Antirealism in Contemporary Philosophy of Science

Abstract

The scientific realism/antirealism debate in contemporary philosophy of science is about theoretical knowledge, that is, knowledge that is supposed to be about so-called “unobservables.” This includes theoretical entities, such as neutrinos and genes, as well as theoretical processes, such as natural selection and continental drift. Is theoretical knowledge in science possible? In general, scientific realists tend to think that science can (and does) yield theoretical knowledge, whereas antirealists tend to think that science cannot (and does not) yield theoretical knowledge (that is, knowledge about unobservables). To put it another way, scientific realists tend to argue that we have good reasons to believe that our best scientific theories are approximately true because, if they were not even approximately true, they would not be able to explain and predict natural phenomena with such impressive accuracy. On the other hand, antirealists tend to argue that the impressive success of our best scientific theories does not warrant belief in the approximate truth of our best scientific theories. This is because the history of science is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded.