According to scientific realism, the world exists as an independent reality, which is different from the way we perceive it. The familiar and comfortable world of our everyday world vanishes and is replaced by a large vacuum and little gravity. However, does reality exist as we perceive it. My claim is that I think that reality does not exist as we perceive it. To backup my claim, the first reason is that scientific knowledge is progressive in nature, and that it is able to predict phenomena successfully. A mathematician named Martin Gardner quoted that “If you wonder why people have been and are realists, is because no scientific conjecture has been more overwhelmingly confirmed. No hypothesis offers a simpler explanation of why the Andromeda galaxy spirals in every photograph, why all electrons are identical.” This shows that without realism, it would be difficult to explain why the world appears to be so real. If scientific realism were false, then our scientific theories wouldn’t work as well as they do. An argument against this claim could be that theory choice is radically underdetermined by the evidence we possess. There are other theories that we could have written down which would have predicted all the same evidence that our current theories predict, and according to which the claims made by our current theories are false. For this reason, we can’t know that our current theories are correct. To back my claim, the second reason is that if something can be detected by some kind of method, technique, or instrument, then it is likely real and can be reasonably believed in as it adds credibility of it probably existing. For example, Ian Hickling gives the example of Dense bodies in red blood platelets that are detected by using different forms of microscopy. “Different techniques of detection, such as light microscopy and transmission electron microscopy, make use of very different sorts of physical processes, and these operations are described theoretically in terms of correspondingly different causal mechanisms.” An argument against this claim could be that common sense does not always serve as reliable guide to truth, as it is extremely difficult to determine what qualifies something to be common sense in the first place. Furthermore, why do certain theories gain respect for the mere fact of its basic explanatory nature? Often, many theories that are accepted science today are not apparent and hard to understand in the first place. Therefore, this model doesn’t seem to play by the rules of common sense. I without a doubt agree with my claim because scientific knowledge is progressive in nature, and that it is able to predict phenomena successful and if something can be detected by some kind of method, technique or instrument, then it it is likely real and can be reasonably believed in. At the end of the day, it is arguably the most reasonable theory to account for the regularity of our experience.