Abstract

Bertolet has located an error in "realism and truth", But he misdescribes it and is likely to mislead. Two distinctions emphasized in the book are important in assessing bertolet's criticism: disquotational vs. Correspondence truth; constitutive vs. Evidential issues about realism. Correspondence truth has no role in the constitutive issue of what realism is and little in the evidential one of defending realism. Disquotational truth can have a role in the constitutive issue, But this is of no significance. The book erred in underplaying the importance of the disquotational truth of theories for the evidential issue