Today, the debate between scientific realists and antirealists is as lively and diverse as ever. A main point of contention is how to interpret the empirical success of our best theories: as a symptom of their approximate truth, as realists maintain, or instead as their ability to “save the phenomena”, as antirealists suggest? One thing that both camps agree on, however, is the plain fact that theories can be, and often are, in fact, empirically successful, i.e., able to “account for” (fit, accommodate) a body of available evidence. It is moreover commonly assumed that in doing this, some theories may be better than others; in other words, that “empirical success” is a comparative notion, admitting of…
˜