Debate Between Realism And Anti-Realism

1509 Words 7 Pages
Over the past centuries, the topics of realism and anti-realism have been on ongoing debate amongst philosophers. Both perspectives have been revisited time after time, citing different reasons for the existence of each belief. These two topics belong to the area of philosophy, more specifically, metaphysics. Metaphysics explores the nature of existence, exploring why things exist and how they came to exist in the first place. Philosophers argue that it is the foundation behind philosophy, answering questions about the existence of the world, that if left unanswered would hinder our perception and grasp of reality. Therefore, realism and anti-realism ultimately “concern the aim of science” as mentioned by Samir Okasha in his book Philosophy of Science: A Very Short …show more content…
Philosophers continue to revisit these ideas, supporting their initial claims and making counter arguments to rebuttals. While realism supports the idea that science is based on facts and the truth, using scientific theories to accurately depict the world, anti-realism claims that the purpose of science is to find theories that are empirically correct due to one’s own observations of the physical world. Ultimately, the debate of realism and anti-realism concern the aim of science, trying to discover why scientists perform certain actions opposed to others as a result of their individual beliefs. It comprises of the nature of scientific knowledge, how we can attain and are limited by it, and the overall interpretation of the scientific enterprise. Inconsistencies can be highlighted in both arguments, however, both embrace a certain truth if observed through an unbiased perspective. Although they use different approaches, both realism and anti-realism aim towards exploring and discovering the purpose of science, ultimately attaining scientific knowledge that will help us explain the physical

Related Documents