issue of circularity from the overall argument of the scientific realism and how instrumental success of science can contribute towards the general belief for inferring the truth.
There is also a debate which advocates the non-application of the realism to the scientific theories as it is not conclusive and deals with the future. What is also significant to note that realism of entities is considered as an acceptable phenomenon in terms of using an entity during the experiments? It is also argued that proving the existence of the entities may also be difficult as during the scientific experiments, scientists only manipulate the entities rather than prove their existence.
Ian Hacking however, provided a very clear distinction between the entity realism and theory realism besides providing experimental arguments in favor of entity realism. This paper will therefore basically attempt to discuss the position of Hacking on the entity realism as well as on theory realism and how Hacking advances his arguments in favor of entity realism.
Scientific realism potentially attempt to answer different set of questions including our belief in those unseen entities which exist but cannot be seen with the naked eye. Do we need to believe in such entities or there any other methods through which we can prove their existence or rather accept their existence. What is also significant to understand that such entities put a very challenging question as to the fact that whether such entities really exist? And how they can be defined and explored further. The work of Ian Hacking was mostly based on this simple curiosity to define the existence of such entities.(Cruse, 2003).
Scientific realism is the term which is often used to describe the overall successes of the science as it attempts to answer the question of how successful science was in describing the world that we see. The general idea or perception is that the world described by the science is the real world and is considered