Realism vs.

Instrumentalism
Author
University
October 2016

1. Introduction
One of the important aspects when thinking of science is a debate between realism and
instrumentalism doctrines. According to Arthur Fine (2000), fierce debate started in 1956
by Karl Popper when he published his essay Three views concerning human knowledge
in which he argued against realism that science should be used as a toll only and for known
experiences. Both have valid grounds for their arguments which are going to be covered by
this essay. On one hand, realism argues that the world around is real and truthful and
science theories should be used to validate truth about processes that can be both
observable and unobservable as well predict future trends. On the other, instrumentalism
argues that science should be used as a tool to determine reliable means to achieve
desirable ends. Also, instrumentalism argues that science can be used only in cases of
known experiences that can be observable. Essay has an aim to further explore these
scientific methods and examine which of them is more plausible in explaining the role of
science.

2. Realism
Realism is a scientific position which states that scientific theories are true (or somewhat
true) descriptions of physical world that surrounds us. Sciences main goal is to produce
best available theories in aspects of both truthfulness and prediction. Advocates of realism
also argue that science is gradually growing in successful theory production and would
reach ideal description of the world that surrounds us. There are two basic arguments that
defend the position of realism movement in scientific approach.
Firstly, realism states that science, especially nowadays, is experiencing growth in both
spheres of study and truthfulness of its theories. Realism states that previous theories that
are now considered to be false are not to be completely discarded, but rather improved and
changed. The objects of scientific theories observation still exist and are present in our
world, only our understanding of them changed. Good example of this argument was
provided by Armin N. Shirazi who stated that Characterization of scientific progress
depends on the intactness of certain core concepts in the face of experimental challenge
within some regions of the theory's original domain of validity (2008). By categorizing
objects and processes of physical world as true or false, realists argue that it can bring more
understanding to other similar objects and processes, and thus meaningfully describe them.
The more descriptive knowledge we have about the real existence, the more accurately can
we predict and understand relations that surround us.
Secondly, realism states that physical world surrounds us and interacts with us in a way
that we, human beings, can understand. Science is not just a tool to use these processes to
our end, but to understand it and accurately describe it. Howard Sankey in his defense of
realism (2004) wrote that first thesis of scientific realism is to discover the truth about the
world. He also states that realists tend to be optimistic towards prospects of finding truths
of the physical world that surrounds us. It is evident that as time passes, we are more
technologically developed and understand our surroundings a lot deeper than a century

ago. Realism propagates that scientific theories should be used to uncover truths about
processes and/or objects, and use that knowledge to predict behavior of similar
processes/objects that we might now be fully aware of yet. Realism is axiomatic in its core
nature due to its acknowledgement nature (Rosenhouse 2012).

3. Instrumentalism
Instrumentalism scientific approach has quite different approach as to what science is all
about. It views science as a tool to help us solve practical problems rather than meaningful
descriptions in the known world. It does not recognize unobservables or abstract factors as
valid in scientific theories. One of the forefathers of instrumentalism, John Dewey, argued
that world we know could only be a world that is dependent on our own theories, thoughts
and sensations (Godfrey-Smith, 2013). Instrumentalists have two major arguments for their
approach.
Science, according to instrumentalists, should be used as an instrument to come up with
solutions on problems and estimate future trends from findings. Science should not be used
to describe surroundings but rather discover reliable means to a desirable end of known
experiences. John Dewey, as mentioned above, argued that means-end relations of object
can be discovered by using both inductive and deductive reasoning. Reasoning, he argued,
was only possible by using our senses, logical judgment and generalization. According to
Dewey, scientists should first observe the object he or she researches, and then should
proceed to generalizations. From there, scientists could make theories based on these
generalizations and discover a way to design solutions to practical problems.
Second argument states that theories are undetermined in their very nature, as there are no
sufficient available data and evidence to rule out opposing results. In essence, scientific
theory cannot be deemed true or false based on current results since the circumstances can
change over time. What was considered true at some point in past could be deemed false in
the future. The fact that there is no amount of evidence that can prove theory completely as
true, it is logical to question validity of conducting researches based on descriptive goals.
Instrumentalists instead offer to categorize theories as successful or unsuccessful based on
how well they have solved particular problem and if it is possible to produce estimated
future results. They also argue that in modern times, science has experienced breakthrough
in many different fields, managing to even open new spheres of scientific study. Many
theories were opposed and proven false in its assumptions and solutions, thus it proves that
a theory can be only useful if based on problem solving with currently available tools a
scientists have.

4. Conclusion
Both realism and instrumentalism have similar goals in mind to analyze our surroundings
and produce meaningful answers to various phenomena that exist in our world. As Eugene
Lashchyk pointed out that already, in the core position, scientists at times take on some
version of the realist or instrumentalist positions (1992). Though instrumentalism raises
fair points on how science should be used, in my opinion, realism has more plausible
explanation of how science should be used.
By identifying core aspects of phenomena that is being researched, theories can give useful
insights on what the phenomena is, and whether it has relationships with other phenomena
that can be documented and predicted. Although, it is given that all phenomena in our
world are unique by themselves, it is very likely that some similarities do exist and can be
categorized. In order to find these similarities, somewhat accurate description is needed to
identify and compare these similarities.
Another point to take for realism is that science is not just a tool to be used for problem
solving but also an encyclopedia of scientific knowledge that can explain phenomena and
give traits that are recognizable. The more descriptive knowledge we have, the bigger
probability it is to identify and predict behavior of other similar objects. It is my personal
belief that science can give best results if we improve our perceptions of our physical
surroundings and then use that knowledge to build more abstract theories from which we
can reach phenomena that were unreachable until that point.

5. References
Fine A. (2000, April). The scientific image twenty years later. Paper presented at the
American Philosophical Association (Pacific Division), Albuquerque, USA, April
2000.
Shirazi N. Armin (2008, April). Instrumentalism vs. Realism and Social Construction.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Sankey H. (2004). Scientific Realism: An Elaboration and a Defense (pp 1-4). University
of Bielefeld, Berlin: Springer
Rosenhouse, J. (2012, August 17). Realism vs. Anti-Realism in the Philosophy of Science
[Web log post]. Retrieved from http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog
Godfrey-Smith P. (2013, February). Dewey and the Question of Realism. City University of
New York, New York.
Lashchuk E. (1992). Contingent Scientific Realism and Instrumentalism (pp. 57-69), Kyiv,
Ukraine.