A Pragmatic, Existentialist Approach to the Scientific Realism Debate

The debate between scientific realists and anti-realist empiricists is often treated as a question about whose position is true, or rationally preferable per se. This debate is widely considered to have been argued to a stalemate. I suggest we accept this stalemate and instead investigate when and whether scientific realism or anti-realist empiricism is more useful, and thereby rationally preferable, for certain individuals. I develop a methodological framework for doing this, then put it to use by investigating the practical benefits for working scientists of adopting one view over the other. This investigation is historical rather than philosophical, and therefore empirical rather than theoretical, focused around a case study of the way philosophical commitments influenced the scientific practice of late 19th c. electrodynamics researchers in positive and negative ways.