Abstract

This book is highly recommended for those who want to break into the current realism/anti-realism debate, as it ranges over the fields of Philosophy of Science, Linguistic Analysis, Cognitive Science, etc. It would make an ideal text for those teachers who want to give their students a "map of the territory," indicating the various positions and implications of positions, and stances of the major "players"--Kuhn, Feyerabend, Van Fraasen, Davidson, Dummett, Putnam, Quine. In Devitt's view, two errors plague much of the contemporary discussion: There is a confusion between what constitutes realism and what should be evidence for realism. The issue of truth is attacked first, and only subsequently the issue of realism. The order should properly be reversed. The more encompassing theory of the world takes up the realism/anti-realism debate; this should be settled first, on the usual grounds for accepting any theory-usefulness, plausibility, etc. The semantic issue of truth arises only in the relatively parochial and circumscribed sub-set of our general theory, the theory of people and their behavior, especially, for Devitt, their teaching, learning, and general communication. Our answer to the latter should not reflect back upon and control our answer to the former, as it has often done in the modern period, where the issue of certainty confused the issue of truth and made anti-realism more attractive than realism. Devitt gives the best description of his own position as follows: "he theory of understanding is the wrong place to start. The task is to put together the most plausible comprehensive theory of the phenomena that confront us. Theories of language and understanding are only two among many scientific theories that must be fitted into the comprehensive picture. Realism is an overarching empirical theory or principle. It is initially plausible. It is supported by arguments that make no appeal to theories of language or understanding. Its rivals all fail. What firmer place could there be to stand than Realism, as we theorize in such undeveloped areas as those of language and understanding? In contrast, the poor state of theories in those areas, whether verificationist or not, makes them a bad place from which to start theorizing, particularly in determining overarching principles about the nature of reality. To think otherwise is to put the cart before the horse". The arguments for the above claims are tight and reward the effort needed to work through them. Frequent cross-references keep the reader from losing the forest for the trees. The realist has felt naked and defenseless before the recent onslaughts of the above-mentioned anti-realists. Devitt, following the lead of Hartry Field, gives him a suit of clothes, indeed, in this reader's opinion, a suit of armor. Devitt chases down the enemies of realism into their rabbit holes; not the least impressive aspect of this work occurs when Devitt indicates the valid criteria of what should count as an "adequate explanation"--what should rationally be demanded--and how these can be abused. Devitt unmasks the "coyness" of certain well-known anti-realists for what it is--an inability to provide an explanation when one is truly needed, an inability camouflaged by demanding of the realist an "explanation" where none in fact is needed. This is an unusually comprehensive work, and a powerful, first-rate performance.--Patrick Madigan, Loyola University, New Orleans.