Truth: Realism and Antirealism - Epistemology Video 28 

In terms of mathematical reality, I imagine it could be possible to show that some conjectures are inherently unprovable, so that this could be a feature of the reality. For physical realism, I guess that realists are unlikely to accept the hypothesis that a do-nothing-on does in fact do nothing, while the anti-realist will advance the hypothesis as an idea to undermine realism. I am not sure that is effective though because, it is hard to see what kind of norm or norms a do-nothing-on could arise from.

Sir, would you please suggest some essential readings in this topic? I am interested to know further about the debate.

Isn’t the Gödel sentence true, but improvable? Is this why formalism, the idea that mathematical provability is mathematical truth, isn’t popular anymore?

It seems that one cannot distinguish the truth realist vs the truth anti-realist by their behaviors (outside of debating realism/antirealism) - both will produce the same math and science. In which case the realism/anti-realism difference regarding truth is doing no work. Its a difference that makes no difference. Is this a reasonable inference?

The problem that the anti-realist faces is their reliance on mere empiricism as means for absolute truth/knowledge. A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but there are many things that are obviously the case that are not empirically verified to be so - the universals. They include numbers, the laws of logic/thought, the self/mind, time & space (see Kant's a priori metaphysic, although flawed), ethics, the past, etc. These "things" exist, but are non-material, therefore not subject to direct empirical investigation. Are they related to empirical investigation? Yes. But they are not empirically verified to exist, nor can they be.

I don't see how the anti-realist can claim reality is what comes out of our _best_ methods if they have no independent grounding for what constitutes a _good_ method. What's to stop them from simply asserting the current methods are the _best_ possible and therefore everything they produce is right by definition? Seems patently circular to me. It makes sense in mathematics because all systems that don't contain a contradiction are permitted. So there are no worse or better systems, they simply either contain a contradiction or they don't. But extending the anti-realist view to all of science seems to deny that their can be any progress at all in science. Isn't it all just a fad of which method is preferred for this moment?

I agree with much of what you say here, though I think you giving an overly charitable description of the anti realism narrative that underpins western political discourse now. By juxtaposing mathematical theory throughout the discussion, I believe you are guiding a conclusion you wish the viewer to draw. The current political narratives in the West have their origins in Hegel, Rousseau, Marx, and the Marxist influenced post modern theorists like Foucault, Derrida, Bell, Kendi, Marcuse, etc. The political praxis of the academic idea of contemporary anti realism, driving the dominant progressive political discourse, is exactly the idea that the Human mind creates reality, specifically, the objective world. The Soviet Man, the End of History, and its modern relation - Intersectional Systemic Analysis, and the end of oppressor-oppressed relation. End-of-History, Intersectionality and Perfected State are all gnostic beliefs that human society are merely projections of group human psychology. The material world is a psychological hologram. This is literally what is believed. Literal telekinesis, based on antirealism. Progress is the deconstruction of human psychology to achieve the intersectional utopia. Empiricism or objectivity are not just open to a third option in antirealism - in these current world interpretations, antirealism has a spiritual, religious narrative, that humans bend the physical world with brain waves. That is the utopia described at the end of the intersectional, Hegelian or Marxian "End-of-History" rainbows. Hence "XYZ is a social construct", as a fit-all reposte in discourse. I think you are fair, but your own nuance and biases are the underpinning to lead the witness, and beg the question. It would be better to fully represent the practical results of these ideas in the political realm now, from opposing sides, as well as an academically neutral (practically impossible for humans) exploration. I don't blame you for this, but you are an Academic, in Leiden, in the Netherlands, in a 21st century Netherlands city. This is the water you swim in, so you would either be very brave, or willing to face social and financial ostracisation, in this situation, to fully flesh out the range of antirealism ideas that are adopted in our modern, western societies.