Scientific realism holds that successful scientific theories describe reality—electrons and genes really exist as described. Anti-realists note that the history of science is littered with discarded entities once considered real (phlogiston, caloric, luminiferous ether). If past theories we deemed successful were actually false about their central entities, why believe current theories are different? Realists respond that modern theories exhibit more predictive success than historical ones, suggesting we're converging on truth.
It can be inferred from the text that
phlogiston and caloric are now accepted as real entities
scientific realism has no defenders
the relationship between scientific success and truth about unobservable entities remains philosophically contentious
modern theories make no predictions
Correct Answer: C
Choice C is the best answer. Debate continues about whether success indicates truth about unobservables.
- Context clues: Realists see success as truth; anti-realists point to successful-but-false past theories.
- Meaning: Whether success tracks truth about entities like electrons is disputed.
- Verify: The ongoing debate between positions shows the contention.
💡 Strategy: When both sides have arguments and the debate continues, infer the issue is contentious.
Choice A is incorrect because they're listed as "discarded entities." Choice B is incorrect because realists "respond" with arguments. Choice D is incorrect because modern theories exhibit "more predictive success."