Question

What is the significance of the debate on scientific realism?

There is a certain tendency to link it to the question "why trust science?", but that science is to be trusted seems undisputed within this debate. The arch-anti-realist van Fraassen freely admits that we could act as if major theories were true - so what, do you think, is at stake?

(Perhaps I should add that this is not intended as an argument against scientific realism. I would personally subscribe to realism when asked (with some qualifications), but I am wondering about the significance of the debate itself. I mean, and this is not a rhetorical question, what difference does it make whether realists or antirealists prevail?

Answer 1

The debate on scientific realism concerns whether scientific theories accurately describe an objective reality or are solely effective at organizing experiences and making predictions. This debate influences perspectives on scientific progress, morality, and our foundational beliefs about what constitutes reality.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Significance of the Debate on Scientific Realism

The debate on scientific realism is a critical discourse within the philosophy of science, examining whether scientific theories describe the world as it truly is, or if they are merely instruments for organizing human experience and predicting phenomena. Proponents of scientific realism hold that the success of science in making precise predictions and enabling functional technology implies that scientific theories correspond to an objective reality. On the other hand, anti-realists argue that the success of a theory does not necessarily entail its truthfulness about the reality beyond observable phenomena.

This debate matters because it influences how we interpret scientific progress and the truth-status we assign to our scientific understanding of the world. For instance, if anti-realists prevail, it suggests a view where theories are seen as useful fictions rather than literal descriptions of reality. Conversely, the success of realist perspectives underpins the notion that science progressively reveals an objective, mind-independent reality.

Besides, the scientific realism debate has broader implications, affecting other domains, such as moral realism, where similar concerns are raised about the objectivity of moral truths in the presence of wide disagreement. Ultimately, the outcome of this debate shapes our collective attitude towards the enterprise of science, the legitimacy of moral reasoning, and our understanding of what it means for something to be real.