system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
ELI5 Scientific realism vs Scientific anti-realism and the arguments for and against them.
gpt
The way these terms are normally understood is like this:

> Scientific realism is the thesis that the (theoretical) objects that we study in science are in fact real; that is, when we discover that (say) electrons have spin, we are discovering real properties of real objects.

> Scientific anti-realism is the thesis that the (theoretical) objects that we study in science are constructions that are useful to us in representing and explaining the world around us. 

Most scientific realists will tell you that they aren't committed to *every* object that science studies. Some are better confirmed than others. 

Usually, the main argument given for scientific realism is the "no miracles" argument: it would be a miracle is somehow this vast lie we've been telling ourselves happened to consistently have true results in the way that science has had. Anti-realists respond by pointing out that the whole point of science (in their view) is to produce the sort of results that we're talking about, meaning that the lie is told precisely because it is useful. 

All of that is overly simplified, but you did say ELI5.