Structural realism attempts to steer between full scientific realism (theories describe unobservable reality correctly) and anti-realism (theories are mere instruments for prediction). It holds that while the specific entities posited by theories may change, successful theories preserve underlying mathematical structure. The structure is what's real and continuous across theory change. Critics ask whether structure can be meaningfully separated from content—what is structure without entities to structure?
It can be inferred from the text that
structural realism is identical to full scientific realism
anti-realism claims theories describe unobservable reality correctly
scientific theories have never changed over time
attempts to find middle ground between philosophical positions may face questions about the coherence of the compromise
Correct Answer: D
Choice D is the best answer. Structural realism tries to steer between positions but faces coherence questions.
- Context clues: It "attempts to steer between" realism and anti-realism; critics ask whether structure can be separated from content.
- Meaning: The compromise position faces its own challenges about coherence.
- Verify: "What is structure without entities to structure?" questions whether the middle ground makes sense.
💡 Strategy: When a middle position faces questions about its own coherence, infer that compromise itself creates issues.
Choice A is incorrect because it's positioned between realism and anti-realism. Choice B is incorrect because full scientific realism makes that claim, not anti-realism. Choice C is incorrect because theory change is the phenomenon structural realism addresses.