Addendum to Previous Post

It should be noted that, despite the original editor's interpretation of Copernicus's theory of the solar system, Copernicus himself would have thought that he was trying to present an accurate or plausible theoretical picture of the solar system. In short, he would have seen himself as attempting to provide a 'scientific realist' account of the solar system. Thus for him, the Sun was really at the centre of the solar system with all the planets orbiting about it in circular motion and with moons orbiting around certain planets like the Earth and Jupiter. He therefore would have thought that his account of the solar system was more accurate than Ptolemy's, which has the Earth as the centre of the solar system and all the planets and the Sun orbiting about it. And even, with respect to Ptolemy's account, despite it proving to be a false or inaccurate account of the solar system, he himself was nevertheless attempting to provide an accurate theoretical picture of the solar system, based on astronomical evidence. Also, it needs noting that while Copernicus's account of the solar system is more accurate than Ptolemy's, that doesn't mean it was 'the' right account of the solar system. This is particularly true in light of, initially, the Kepler-Newtonian account of the solar system and then, later, Einstein's account of it. Anyway, the basic point here is that Copernicus's work (along with Ptolemy's, whose work preceded his, and Tycho Brahe's, Galileo's, Kepler's, Newton's, and Einstein's, whose works all succeeded his) is scientific realist in orientation.

Thus, it needs noting here that while someone's scientific work may fail in the end to give a complete account of things along scientific realist lines, it doesn't mean the scientist in question is not a 'scientific realist' in terms of their scientific aims. They just haven't realised their scientific goals, that's all.

Again, this is one of the main differences between scientific realism and instrumentalism: the latter simply doesn't aim to discover the true state of things, unlike scientific realism; it aims only at making predictions, regardless of how false or inaccurate its theories are. While, on the other hand, scientific realism holds that in order to give a complete account of things, it's not enough to just come up with more or less accurate predictions about things, you also have to base them on sound theories - since the endgame is scientific truth.