The History of Science

If we're talking about what's approximately true, is that good enough for realism to say what really is there if we're just approximating? Well, realism, schmielism. But it's not a historical relativism about scientific truth, is it? No, no, just the opposite. That's the position you'd adopt if you were moved by the pessimistic matter induction. And so I think they're the realists probably has to adopt a different strategy. The original pessimistic meta-induction is just too crude even if we put to one side the issues of approximate truth.