“Scientific Realism &amp

Anti-realism"The “no miracles argument” is an argument for realism that states that there are unobservable “entities” in the world that can be used to influence the observable world. Just because one cannot observe everything does not mean that it does not exist. What happens in the observable world proves the existence and can allow one to predict the behavior of the unobservable.
A theory is “empirically successful” if it has to be shown to make “excellent predictions about the behavior of objects in the observable world”. Inherently unobservable phenomena, such as the changes an electron undergoes in an atom when moving from a high to lower energy-state in lasers, which scientists then apply to technology that is functionally based on the repeatable results of the experiments define theories that are empirically successful.
Realists use the theory to confirm the existence of the unobservable world and to make predictions about its reliability, proposing that if a theory is empirically successful that it must be true based on the results of repeated observations. Anti-realists refer to a number of theories based on empirically successful experimentation that science has later proven false. The anti-realist position is that as science becomes more sophisticated and uncovers ways to observe more of the world, more of the unknown becomes known.
The “no clear difference” argument proposes that there is no clear delineation between the observable and unobservable world. Another argument for realism, this argument indicates that if the line cannot be drawn so that it is easily understood, that more is observable than the anti-realists readily assume.