Britannica Sources used in this answer

How does constructive empiricism differ from scientific realism?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

Marble bust of Aristotle with a beard and draped robe, showing detailed facial features and wavy hair, set against a dark background. — Philosophy of science Aristotle, marble portrait bust, Roman copy (2nd century bce) of a Greek original (c. 325 bce); in the Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome.

The primary distinction between scientific realism and constructive empiricism lies in their respective goals for scientific theories and their ontological commitments regarding unobservable entities.12

Scientific Realism
Scientific realists argue that the aim of science is to provide a literally true account of the world. They maintain that accepting a scientific theory involves believing that its theoretical claims—including those concerning unobservable entities like electrons or subatomic particles—are true descriptions of reality. Realists often contend that this perspective is necessary to explain the success of science, suggesting it would be miraculous if theories were successful without being at least approximately true.132

Constructive Empiricism
Developed by Bas van Fraassen, constructive empiricism posits that the goal of science is not truth, but "empirical adequacy". A theory is considered empirically adequate if it correctly predicts observable phenomena. Constructive empiricists argue that scientists should build models to "save the phenomena" while remaining agnostic about the existence of unobservable entities. They assert that there is no need to commit to the truth of theoretical claims beyond what is required to account for observable evidence, thereby avoiding the extra risks associated with realist ontological commitments.12