“Arguments Concerning Scientific Realism” is Bas van Fraassen's attack on the positive construction of science. He begins by defining scientific realism as the goal of science to provide a “literally true story of what the world is like”; and “acceptance of a scientific theory” requires “belief that it is true.” This definition contains two important attributes. The first attribute describes scientific realism as practical. The goal of science is to achieve an exact truth about the world. The second attribute is that scientific realism is epistemic. To accept a theory, one must believe that it is true. Van Fraassen acknowledges that a “literally true version” divides anti-realists into two camps. The first camp believes that the goal of science is to give an appropriate description of what the world is like. On the other hand, the second camp believes that an appropriate description of the world must be given, but that it is not necessary to accept the corresponding theories as true. Following the principles of the second camp, van Fraassen offers his alternative to scientific realism. His position is known as constructive empiricism. According to van Fraassen, “science aims to give us empirically adequate theories; and acceptance of a theory involves only the belief that it is true.” The quote means that a theory must fit an observable empirical world and its descriptions of the world must be true. Furthermore, the theory must also safeguard all phenomena related to the theory and not just observable ones. Van Fraassen also mentions that acceptance of the theory involves more than just belief. This requires certain commitments that reveal a pragmatic aspect of accepting a theory. Next, Van Fraassen critiques arguments for...... middle of article ...... enriching and thought-provoking views on scientific realism. Each perspective explains science in its own way. As a result, I was led to learn how entity realism defines success in science. According to Steven French, the success of entity realism does not depend only on the “alleged truth of theories”. The realistic entity defines success as the ability for us to “intervene in the world.” This intervention allows us to create new technologies and observe new phenomena. Our new technologies allow us to believe in unobservable entities like electrons. I found this important because it is essentially a description of the scientist's daily task. It is their job to identify phenomena, research them, and find an explanation for why the phenomenon occurs. Scientists spend their entire careers intervening in hopes of better understanding the world.