no miracles argument for the truth of successful theories. Antirealists, however, deny that explanation is either necessary or possible, and that is a cue to truth. Moreover, they reject realism and the cogency of the no miracles argument by the pessimistic induction from the falsity of past successful theories. Some realists reply that there is a radical discontinuity between past science (largely off-track) and current science (basically sound). But this reply is at best insufficient, and most realists prefer to restrict their commitment to selected parts or features of theories, both past and present. Forms of "selective realism" are entity realism, structural realism, deployment realism and semirealism, but also the verisimilitude research program and the restricted-domain approach. Realists need criteria to identify the true components of theories, and a noteworthy candidate is essential involvement in functionally novel and surprising predictions. The second main question is a special instance of the old debate between realists and relativists or idealists: according to antirealists science cannot be objective, because of its inherently "perspectival" nature, characterized by a priori and subjective factors. On the contrary, perspectival realists argue that the specific "viewpoints" within which scientists must work do not prevent them to discover objective features of reality." /> The debates on scientific realism today - Alai Mario | sdvig press