How do scientific realists use the success of scientific theories to support their position?

Scientific realists argue that the success of scientific theories provides strong evidence for their truth, a position often referred to as the "ultimate argument for realism."12

From this perspective, it would be a "coincidence of cosmic proportions"—or a "miracle"—if theories that consistently generate accurate predictions and facilitate systematic success across broad domains were not at least approximately true. Realists contend that the most credible explanation for why the world behaves as if our best theories are true is that those theories are, in fact, accurate descriptions of reality, including the unobservable entities and mechanisms they postulate.12

While antirealists, such as those who advocate for instrumentalism or constructive empiricism, suggest that success can be explained simply by a theory’s "empirical adequacy" (its ability to predict observable phenomena), realists maintain that this fails to account for the depth of scientific practice. Modern realists often adopt a "piecemeal" approach, arguing that we should judge specific parts of a theory as true or false based on their role in generating successful predictions, rather than assessing theories as monolithic wholes.13