My Representing and Intervening (1983) concludes with what it calls an experimental argument for scientific realism about entities. The argument is evidently inapplicable to extragalactic astrophysics, but leaves open the possibility that there might be other grounds for scientific realism in that domain. Here I argue for antirealism in astrophysics, although not for any particular kind of antirealism. The argument is conducted by a detailed examination of some current research. It parallels the last chapter of (1983). Both represent the methodological (...) opinion that abstract or semantic realism/antirealism debates are empty, and typically lead to confused or wrong conclusions because they pay so little attention to the details of a science. (shrink)

With the careful use of the polywater episode in the history of chemistry as a case study, I will show that the distinction recently made in the philosophy of science between experimenting on an entity and manipulating that entity is best seen as a distinction between experimenting on, and experimenting with, that entity. The polywater case also reveals that Ian Hacking's 1983 manipulability criterion is not a necessary condition for realism, and that scientists can, and do, justifiably change their minds (...) as to the reality of theoretical entities. (shrink)

This paper examines Ian Hacking's arguments in favor of entity realism. It shows that his examples from science do not support his realism. Furthermore, his proposed criterion of experimental use is neither sufficient nor necessary for conferring a privileged status on his preferred unobservables. Nonetheless his insight is genuine; it may be most profitably seen as part of a more general effort to create a space for a new form of scientific and philosophical certainty, one that does not require foundations.