Abstract

Epistemological realism is the view that it is logically and nomologically possible for a person to have a warrant for believing in a scientific theory. Anti-realism is the negation of this position. Kukla asks if there are any arguments that would rationally compel us to become realists or anti-realists. His conclusion is depressing: the conflict is an irreproachable irreconcilability. It is irreproachable because neither side has made an error of logic or fact in reaching their opinions and it is irreconcilable since there are no facts that can or should persuade a person to switch from belief in one to belief in the other. The failure to produce any completely successful argument combined with the fact that there has been a generation of intensive arguments about realism suggests that we should be prepared for the debate to end in stalemate.